Rick Bilbro asked, > After going hiking yesterday and carrying 3 lenses I am considering getting > a 28-200 or 300 zoom for a walkaround lens when I don't want to carry my > whole bag, or just want to travel light. Any comments on the following > lenses in that category. > > Canon 28-200 > Tokina 24-200 > Sigma 28-200 > Sigma 28-300 > Tamron 28-200 > Tamron 28-300 > > Are the 28-300 zooms any good above 200. The Tokina looks interesting > because it goes to 24. I have been told that Tamron probably has the best > glass in that range. The Canon looks good because, well, it's Canon, and it > has the USM. I've used two of this kind of lens; a Sigma 28-200 (the older version) and a Nikon 28-200. The Nikon was far better than the Sigma, but neither was a patch on either a pro-spec zoom or even better, a good prime lens. Your own needs must decide of course. If you're shooting print film, and if high street d & p is as ordinary stateside as it often is in the UK then you may not notice the ultimate lack of quality, but if your choice is trannies then you will. This sort of superzoom tends to be lacking in contrast, so your shots will look flat in comparison. Another question is, do you need that zoom range on your hikes? Which focal lengths do you use the most? Try going out with just the lens you use most and see how you get on. I started with a 28-200, but now my favourite hiking camera is a Leica M6 (its small and light, quite apart from anything else) for which I have four lenses: 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm. If I had to I could survive with just the 21mm and 35mm. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
