Lens Help?

[FlashGordon]

Gday All,

As previously mentioned im a beginner photographer, but lookin to upgrade my lens, and i cant decide between the canon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the canon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS. Does anyone have any experience with the 2 could anyone make any recommendations on which they prefer? Any information would be greatly appreciated

Ash

[kiwi]

why ?

[FlashGordon]

why ?

Currently using stock 18-55 and 75-300. But i want an all-in-one sort of lens, i know that on the higher end of the zoom, the image quality drops slightly, but in print sized photos it shouldnt really be that noticable.

[kiwi]

so you don't have to change lenses ? is that it ?

[FlashGordon]

Not really just that, i mean, in essense, that is 1 reason, but also too because of the IS, meaning i would be able to shoot better, steadier photos handheld rather than carrying a tripod too. Obviously depending on the light and where im shooting, i may still need a tripod anyway. There have been instances where i have missed really great shots because i have been having to switch lens.

Would you recommend either of these lenses? or even a different lens all together?

[kiwi]

In your intro post you said you wanted to make a job out of this

superzooms with average IQ are not the path for this, specialised pro lenses are

Buy once, buy right

[FlashGordon]

Ah well played sir. Well, what sort of lens would you recommend for an entry level pro lens? As i said, i dont really know much about lenses yet, but im learning as i go.

[kiwi]

I dont want to be glib, but you'll know when you know.

Keep what you have now until it no longer suits you or does the job

The typical pro lens set-up for a typical pro will be

a 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8, possibly a uwa, a 50 or 85 1.4, two flashes, two pro bodies etc

Expect to spend $20K minimum.

[unistudent1962]

Neither of these lenses is going to give you (appreciably) better image quality than you are getting from your kit lenses.

Getting one lens to cover everything and is at best a compromise and may be a waste of money in the long run .

As for what would be a better "pro" lens, you'd need to provide more information on what you like to shoot.

[KeeFy]

Neither do i want to be glib, but if you don't even know what kind of a lens you need. You shouldn't be considering going into the profession anytime soon. It seems most people who pick up a dslr these days wants to go "pro" one day becasue it seems fun, easy etc. More often than not they do not understand how tough and saturated the market is. Have a look on gumtree and there are countless and endless "I'll do your wedding for $400". The fauxtographer shows them a few photos of his best shots, which is like probably 10 out of the millions he has shot due to spray and pray. The poor couple expecting all the photos to look like that may not even end up with photos. Why? The fauxtographer rocks up with limited gear and midway experiences a faulty body or memory card etc.

Thank God it's just a hobby for me.

But back to the topic, what do YOU want to shoot?

[Bennymiata]

Hi Flash.
Getting new lenses can be a traumatic experience, especially if you're not sure of what you really need, as against what you really want.
We all want a lens that can go from 10mm up to 1,000mm and have F1.0 as its largest opening, but that will never happen.

Generally speaking, the wider the zoom ratio, the more compromised the lens will be as far as speed (largest opening) and sharpness.
Prime lenses (non-zoom) lenses generally give the best quality image as well as zooms with small zoom ratios, like under 3:1.
This is why serious amateurs and pros have a number of different lenses to select from, as each lens does a job a little differently.
Sure, you can get lenses that will go from wide angle to super zoom, but generally speaking, they will have fuzzy corners, a dim viewfinder and poor contrast and colours.
If you really need a superzoom lens, don't just neccessarily stick with Canon lenses, as Sigma and Tamron make some very good ones for somewhat less money and they have models with good stabilisation too.

Best thing is to go to a store and try a few of them and see which one suits YOU best.
Look through the viewfinder, and see how bright the image is, then check out the colours and contrast they give you.
Often, good colours and good contrast are more important than being razor sharp, and this is where the good lenses really shine.

Shots taken from poor lenses have no life in them, and the colours are muted and muddy, even if they are sharp.

Take the Zeiss lenses for example.
While the test reports show they may not be as sharp as other lenses, their colours and contrast are just so good, that they are worth every cent you pay for them, and they are quite expensive!

[Redbaron]

Hey flash, had a similar conundrum lot so long ago while thinking what to buy for my new 60D - FWIW I've decided on the 18-135 for "everyday" shooting, traveling, having fun with the kids. the dog etc (already have the 18-55 which came with the camera - will let my son play with that one), and likely get a 70-300 IS for anything which needs a bigger zoom.

After reading countless reviews etc, without spending an absolute fortune that looks like the way to go (for me at least), but I have absolutely no aspirations to "go pro".

[fabian628]

Gday All,

As previously mentioned im a beginner photographer, but lookin to upgrade my lens, and i cant decide between the canon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the canon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS. Does anyone have any experience with the 2 could anyone make any recommendations on which they prefer? Any information would be greatly appreciated

Ash

If you want all in one 18-200 probably the best. I did get this lens, it was OK just as an all in one solutuion. If you are printing small you wont tell the difference like you said. If / when you notice the IQ is not good enough anymore you can move on. Also buying second hand may be an option as you wont lose much on resale.