Camera lens question

[Stout93]

I know there have been many camera and lens topics previously but thought I'd post my question in a new thread on the Alaska forum, might also post it on the camera forum also.

 

I currently have the kit lens for my Canon T1i. I have the 18 - 55 and 55 - 250. Obviously, I'm still somewhat of a novice when it comes to photography.

 

I'll be going to Alaska (Seward and Denali) for a week in August. We'll be taking a Kenai Fjords day cruise, salmon fishing out of Seward, whitewater rafting and heading into Denali National Park for a few days. So scenery and hopefully wildlife will be the main focus of my photos.

 

I'm looking at the possibility of getting a new lens (Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS). Budget is only around $500-$600, dont want to go more than that though. Wondering if this lens (or any other lens that would be recommended within my budget) is that much better than the 55-250 kit lens I already have? Specifically, in terms of quality of photos and reach? If it were you, would you get the new lens?

[bbwex]

The 55-250 corresponds to a 82 - 375 in the old 35mm format. The 70 - 300 corresponds to a 105 - 450. You do get more telephoto, and that's good, the question is how much is the extra 50 (75) mm worth? I used a 500mm extensively, and loved the results. Where you are actually making up a little is in the 15 megapixels. A long distance shot (the only kind you get of Dall sheep in Denali) will be more clear because you have more pixels covering each sheep's small area. So you will likely do better even with your 55 - 250 than I did with 500mm and a 6 MP camera.

 

I used the 500mm even with bears 30 yards from the bus in Denali. I used it a lot even though I did not have the ability to zoom out, and had to change lenses more than I would have liked.

 

Lots of wildlife shots are at a distance in Denali. In Kenai Fjord, you will likely be at a wider angle for lots of glacier pictures. You will want to zoom in for pictures of calving and wildlife.

 

I would go to a camera store, try the bigger lens and see if you think the improvement is worth the cost. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[strangebrew999]

I'm in the same boat as you for my upcoming June Alaska Cruise Tour. I am a very novice photographer with the older Canon XSi and the same two lens 18 - 55 and 55 - 250. I too wanted a new lens for the trip, but instead of going bigger (70 - 300) to add longer range, I decided the best option would be to go for something with a wider range. So I purchased the Canon 18 - 200 mm IS. While I am sure I will regret the loss of the addition 50-100 mm (200 vs 250 vs. 300), my thinking was I would rather not spend my time swapping out lens, to switch between the wide angle beauty and zooming in to get the wildlife that is still too far aware for the perfect shot. Whatever you decide, I'm sure it will be the right choice for you.

[FPJC03]

I have the CANON 40D and when my 70-210 dropped and broke, I bought the 18-200 and use it for the majority of my shots. It is a GREAT all-around lens to take with you. I didn't want to lug my big bag with 3-4 lenses, so the compromise of the 18-200 gives you the ability to shoot in lots of scenarios, but can move fast with minimal equipment to weigh you down. I would see about selling your 55-210 on Ebay or trade in when you buy the new one.

[Squire5000]

I've got the same problem. I'm looking at the Tamron 18-270 lens. Has anyone had any experience with that one?

[chipmaster]

Review here: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1217

 

Generally a decent value lens. LIke all superzooms a compromise lens.

 

I've got the same problem. I'm looking at the Tamron 18-270 lens. Has anyone had any experience with that one?

[mskaufman]

I have the Tamron 18-270 and am very happy with it. The best part is that I almost never have to change lenses. I have the older version, which can still be had for under $500 (with rebate). The newer version is a little lighter. Takes great pictures. The biggest negative is that the autfocus is slow in very low light. I am taking this as my primary lens to AK in July.

[psyfi]

I shot with a Nikon D90 and brought a 28-105 and a 70-300 mm lens. I used the 70-300 the most and never thought I would wish for more tele zoom than that but I did. If I went again, I would consider renting a 400 or 500 mm lens. I would not buy one as they are very expensive and I would not have a lot of other use for that lens but I definately wanted to be able to get closer shots of the wildlife.