New Lens? vs New Camera?

[pudinhd]

Happy Saturday! I am hoping you can help with some camera advice. My husband has a Canon EOS 60D camera with an 18-200 mm zoom lens. We are going on an Alaskan Disney cruise and thinking of buying another lens for the camera. He has looked around and a 24 mm lens is about $150, while a 28 mm lens is around $500. Another idea is just to buy a point and shoot with a 28 mm lens. Any advice or suggestions you have would be appreciated. Thank you very much!

 

[havoc315]

What is it you’re hoping to achieve?

 

[pudinhd]

We want the pictures to look as close to what the eye sees as possible. Thanks!

 

[mousehockey37]

Well, I think we all strive for that goal honestly. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't. That said, he's probably pretty comfortable using the camera he has now. Learning something new, and more than likely inferior to what he currently has is taking a step (possibly many) back. You could always rent the lens for the trip. Or, if enough money is budgeted aside for a point and shoot that would be the same as the more expensive new lens, I'd just go that route.

It honestly depends on what he thinks he can do. Editing photos when he gets home will help bring those photos to life as well, so if he and his equipment do a great job now and just need some touching up at home, is there really anything to go after?

 

[mom2rtk]

Instead of buying something new, I'd spend the money renting a longer lens for shooting wildlife.

 

[havoc315]

If I understand correctly, you want to duplicate the view you get with your eyes. You’d do that by setting your current lens to about 30mm.

So you can already do it.
Because it’s a convenience superzoom, it’s not the best quality or great in low light.
Among the lenses that will give you normal view with better quality and low light functionality:
Tamron 35mm /1.8
Sigma 30mm /1.4
Canon 28mm USM

No reason to buy a point and shoot — it would be no better than using the 18-200 at 28mm.

 

[SrisonS]

If your budget permits, I'd suggest the Sigma 18-35 / 1.8. Great for low-light, and "some" zoom versatility if you want it (it stays on my camera most of the time).

Be careful if you try to go with the Sigma 30mm / 1.4 mentioned above. I know the older versions of that lens were notorious for focusing issues. I had one myself.

 

[KVH]

We want the pictures to look as close to what the eye sees as possible. Thanks!

If you mean side-to-side and top-to-bottom (called field of view), you've already got some good answers (personally I would go wider than 20-30). But I have a feeling your question goes deeper than that. And the answer is - you could spend money till the cows come home and you won't be able to reproduce what you see. If for no other reason than something called dynamic range. Your eye is probably good for at least 20 stops of range (contrast). The average digital camera is, a best, around 10. Your eyes will see more detail in a glance than a camera at almost any point. Which is why the references to post-processing are important (and shooting in RAW mode).

That being said, I would go in the other direction and get a wide angle. On a budget, maybe the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for ~$250. For budget glass, it does quite well and allows you some great, expansive landscape shots. And you can work closer to your subject and still be "in focus".

 

[bob100]

I'd also go wider (Canon 10-18) but if you do any shore excursions you may want longer for wildlife. I've been to Alaska and depending on the season you can see plenty of bears, eagles and moose (and salmon !)


Untitled by c w, on Flickr