![\"Snowy](\"http:\/\/www.elharo.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/snowyegret.jpg\" "\\"snowyegret\\"")
<\/p>\nI’ve had it for about six months now and given it more than a fair shake, but ultimately I’m not happy with the Tamron AF28-300mm F\/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) I got for my primary lens for the EOS 50D. When I put this lens on, I want to be able to shoot at the long end, and I spend a lot more time there than at the short end. Unfortunately it’s just not nearly sharp enough for my tastes at 300mm. Even on a tripod with image stabilization turned on, it needs a shutter speed below 1\/400s, ISO no bigger than 200, and aperture f\/8.0 to f\/11.0 or thereabouts to achieve adequate sharpness. That’s just too limiting. Even then, it’s far from perfect. I’ve gotten a few good shots with it like this Snowy Egret in Mason Park in March, but that’s about it:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Outside direct sunlight, it really doesn’t perform well at all. In fact, this image stands out precisely because it is so sharp. By contrast, I routinely get images that sharp while handholding my non-stabilized Canon EF 100mm f\/2.8 Macro USM, like this Great Blue Heron from San Joaquin a few months later:<\/p>\n
![\"Great](\"http:\/\/www.elharo.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/greatblueheron.jpg\" "\\"greatblueheron\\"")
<\/p>\n
Most of my Tamron shots end up looking like this American White Pelican from the Salton Sea instead:<\/p>\n
![\"white-pelican-at-salton-sea\"](\"http:\/\/www.elharo.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/white-pelican-at-salton-sea.jpg\" "\\"white-pelican-at-salton-sea\\"")
<\/p>\n
So I think it’s time to look for a new general purpose zoom lens. What are my options?
\n<\/p>\n
Ideally I want a lens with the following characteristics:<\/p>\n
Unfortunately this fantasy uber-lens doesn’t exist. Where am I willing to compromise, and what lens comes closest?<\/p>\n
I’m much more concerned about the long end than the short end. I could certainly live with a wide end that was 50mm, or even 100mm. I’m not nearly as picky about landscape and portrait shots as I am about nature shots. I could just throw a Cheap Canon or more likely 3rd party 18-55mm lens in my bag to cover the occasional landscape or portrait shot. Maybe the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f\/3.5-5.6 IS<\/a>? Macro mode is nice to avoid switching lenses, but I do have an excellent macro lens, and prefer to use it when I’m actively seeking out bugs. I can go up somewhat in price. <\/p>\n I don’t want to compromise too much on the weight, In particular, if a lens can’t be reasonably handheld I’m not interested. If you have to put it on a tripod, then I’m a lot less likely to use it. So let’s say what I’m willing to settle for is:<\/p>\n Does this lens exist? Near as I can tell it doesn’t, even if I bump the price up further. Handholdable zoom lenses with acceptable sharpness just don’t go over 300 or maybe 350mm at the outside. Also, past 300mm the weight jumps to the point where a tripod is a necessity. Canon makes some great L-series lenses in the 300-600mm range, and maybe one day I’ll buy one; but I’m not going to throw one in my shoulder bag for a casual outing in the park. <\/p>\n The best one can do is probably<\/p>\n With this much compromise, we’re finally intersecting with reality. There are a few lenses that come close to this.<\/p>\n An L-series superzoom though the heaviest one in this list at 1.7kg. Is there any remote possibility I could handhold that? It’s also damned expensive at $2600. OK, maybe I could scrape together the cash, but the weight? Fact is, the only time I would consider carrying this lens around was when I was driving somewhere, with a tripod, specifically to shoot birds. And if I’m doing that I might as well carry a lens that’s more optimized for birds rather than a general purpose lens like this one. Most of the time this lens would just be an expensive piece of shelf art. Pass. <\/p>\n Relatively cheap at about $250. However this one doesn’t seem to have too great a reputation for sharpness. It may not be an improvement on the Tamron I already have, and doesn’t have quite as much zoom.<\/p>\n A kit lens that maybe I should have just bought with the 50D body instead of splurging on the Tamron. Less zoom than I’d like but better wide angle ability. Fairly expensive for what you get though at $600. Since I really care a lot more about the long end, I’d probably prefer the Canon EF 70-200mm f\/4 L IS USM Telephoto Zoom for roughly the same price if I felt I could live with only 200mm.<\/p>\n An L-series lens, which offers excellent sharpness and lots of zoom. However weight wise, it tops out at around 1.4kg. That’s damn heavy, and probably beyond what I can plausibly hand hold. It’s also expensive, around $1300. The short end is too long for plausible landscapes or portraits. Still it’s probably the highest quality of any of the lenses I can consider. Maybe I’ll rent one<\/a> for a week and see what I think. <\/p>\n Not quite as good as an L-series, but probably the best short of one. Much lighter at 720g though still heavier than I’d like. It has a somewhat wider short end, which is nice, though not as much magnification on the long end. A little cheaper at around $1100. If I had to pick one lens right now, this is the one I’d pick. However I have heard some negative reports about sharpness at the long end which concern me; it doesn’t work with the Canon teleextenders; and it’s not very sharp with 3rd party telextenders. If it can’t maintain sharpness at maximum extension, then it might as well be shorter and lighter. I may try and rent one of these too. <\/p>\n There’s also a cheaper, non-DO model; but most sources seem to agree the diffractive optics on the more expensive model are noticeably better.<\/p>\n Another L-series. Smaller, wider, and with a much reduced zoom, but still quite heavy at 1470g. Expensive at $1250. This one compromises too much. If I’m carrying that much weight I want at least 300mm for my trouble. The Canon 100-400mm L series is about the same size and price; and much better covers the range I’m interested in. The extra 200mm on the long end easily beats an extra 30mm on the wide end. <\/p>\n Same zoom range as the previous one, but maximum (minimum) aperture of f\/4 instead of f\/2.8 makes it quite a bit lighter and more handholdable. In fact, at 760g it’s about half the weight of it’s bigger brother. At less than $600<\/a>, it’s also one of the cheapest options on my list, but no image stabilization. Maybe if I added a teleconverter I’d be happy with it?<\/p>\n\n
\n
Canon EF 28-300\/3.5-5.6L IS USM<\/h3>\n
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS lens<\/h3>\n
EF-S 18-200mm f\/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens<\/h3>\n
Canon 100-400mm f\/4.5-5.6L IS<\/h3>\n
Canon EF 70-300mm f\/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM<\/h3>\n
Canon EF 70-200mm f\/2.8 L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens<\/h3>\n
Canon EF 70-200mm f\/4 L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens<\/h3>\n
Sigma 50-500mm f\/4-6.3 EX DG HSM<\/h3>\n