I have been shooting with the Canon S95, and have got some nice shots from my travels. In Alaska it seems that the S95 could not capture the landscape and wildlife like I had hoped it would. The lighting that time of year was mostly overcast with sun peaking through and light rain. There were many photographers on the trips and most used Canons with some very big telephoto lenses.
Recently, I bought the Canon 60D. I did enough research and feel good about the purchase. However, I think my research regarding lenses was not sufficient. I was going to go with the all in one Canon 18-135mm. I was talked out of this by the sales person and ended up with the Tamron 18-270mm. After doing some reading and shooting of some pictures, my question is how bad was the purchase. Should I have saved some more money and got 2 lenses instead. What would be another choice for an all in one lens? Any help would be most appreciated.
Comments
If you're looking for pin sharp straight out from the camera images you're looking for the canon "L" lens. It is made of high quality glass in almost bullet-proof weather sealed body. For your walk-around lens take a look at the 24-105mm f4L IS USM. For telephoto check out the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM or the less bulky less expensive and less heavy 70-300mm f4L IS USM (you can not fit extenders on this one). The problem with the "L" lenses is that they are EF lenses. Because the 60D has a cropped body you have to multiply the focal range for 1.6, which is good for zoom, but it can be an issue for landscapes.
For cropped bodies Canon EF-S best lenses are the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM and 70-300mm IS USM DO.