Hi everyone,

I'm thinking of getting a tele lens for taking pic of my kid without her poking her finger on the lens. Sometimes indoor, but mainly for use when we are out in the park on Sun mornings. To compliment my existing 50mm 1.4, I'm considering the mentioned options in the subj title.

So far, what I had gathered is that the G lens had problems operating in low light conditions and I'm not too sure how great the 18-250 is anyway.

Appreciate if anyone can give me an insight.

From personal experience, I think the 70-300G is actually quite a horrid lens especially because it has a lot of trouble getting a focus lock on the long end and it is an impractical lens to shoot with in low light situations. Although it is great for outdoor shoots for your kid since your main concern is not wanting your lens to get poked at all the time, it's not very good for much else.

Keep in mind that at a range of 300mm, it's very, very hard to get a sharp shot without a high shutter speed, ISO or VR(SSS) since every little movement will be amplified 10x through the lens.

IMO, the 18-250 is by far one of the most practical lenses to use both indoors and outdoors without having to compromise much because it has such a huge focal range and reasonable aperture size. It has no problems with locking focus and is not even that heavy. If you're taking your kid out and you want to take photos of both her and casual photography(landscapes or etc.), this lens is great because it covers both wideangle and tele.

With the 70-300G, you're limited to mostly portraits and whatnot.

But always keep in mind what you're intending to shoot most and what you don't really need from a lens!

Hope this helped!

Cheers,
Isaac

Hi Isaac,

Good thing you pointed out the limitations of the 70-300G lens. I was swayed by the 'G' branding. I'm a real sucker for branded stuff.

Very pramagtic advice indeed, especially with the last para. Something we shld always keep in mind.

Thanks.

Hi runveryfast,

Sometimes the choice depends on what lens you already had, for the practical reason.
If you already had kit lens such as 18-55 mm or 18-70 mm, why don't you grab the 70-300 ? So you have lenses which covers the range from 18-300.

But if you only have 50mm lens, just take 18-250 !

About the sharpness, you can see it if you print in large. If only for posting in the website, people won't see significant difference ;)

i just read from alpha dslr forum..
somebody is selling 55-200mm for 150sgd only..
you might wanna consider that.. ;)

Hi Jeff,

I was pretty certain with my choice of lens until I saw your comment. I do have a 18-70 kit lens and is now perplexed. I think I'm gonna head down to Sony style to try the lens out myself. Lets hope that the 70-300G lives up to its price tag, otherwise, its gonna be the 18-250.

Cheers.

Super Zooms like the 18-250, logically/technically gives up some image quality due to the large, 13.8x factor. It's cheaper, though it has a smaller aperture.

A telephoto zoom like the 70-300 has a much smaller zoom factor of around 4.3x it's got stronger construction, 50mm more reach, sonic wave motor (SSM), and a slightly larger aperture. :)

I said that that because I own 18-200 lens and the IQ at 200 mm is so poor (slow auto-focusing). So poor and I decided not to bring it in the Bintan outing with JWP friends here.

With 70-300 lens, at 200 mm it can focus much faster than the 18-200.

We talk about 200 mm because we rarely use focal length more than 200 mm for ordinary shooting. If you want to do bird photography, use 300mm f/2.8 hehe

The best thing is you go to the showroom and try by yourself.
Just don't forget to tell us which lens that you decide to buy :)

The 70-300 had better sharpness and image quality than the 18-250, if the range coverage from 18-70 and cost is not crucial to u, the 70-300 is a better lens to own.

Hi Guys,

I finally took time to try out the lenses myself at Cathay (MS). The 70-300G was indeed sharper, faster and "song" with virtually no noise emitted from focusing. But it was impossible to use indoors without the assistance of flash. With the price hike in mind and my intended use of my camera, I opted for the 18-250 instead.

Thanks everyone for the advice!

Hi Runveryfast,

How much you paid for the 18-250mm?

I paid $899/- last July 2007 :o

I got it for $860, I think it was cheaper 2 weeks ago before the price hike.

That's great, enjoy the purchase, and hope you'd post some photos here! :)