Couple of Canon Lens questions

[KAYLI'S DAD]

First let me say Im an extreme novice to photography. I have a canon T3i with 18-55mm, 55-250mm, and the 50mm lens. I just bought the 18-200mm today thinking I wouldnt have to switch lenses between my 18-55 and 55-250 on our upcoming trip. Is this a good excuse or am I missing something else that is different?

2. Should I try and sell my 18-55 and 55-250 now?
3. Im not sure what all the filters are about and dont know what I should buy. UV and polarized. I dont know what they are used for and if I should buy them for all my lenses.

thanks for any help.

 

[havoc315]

The 18-200 is about convenience, but sacrifices quality. The 18-55 and 55-250 would likely produce better images. A uv filter doesn't do much to affect the image, they are a nice way to protect the actual lens from dust and scratches. (Cheaper to replace a filter than a lens)
A polarizing filter can help with glare/reflections if you shoot through a window. Can also help with things lie making skies "bluer" if used correctly.

 

[SplashMo]

Where is your trip to? I agree about the 18-200 being less quality.

 

[KAYLI'S DAD]

Where is your trip to? I agree about the 18-200 being less quality.

Disneyworld. How noticeable is the quality going to be for someone that is new to photography?

 

[photo_chick]

First let me say Im an extreme novice to photography. I have a canon T3i with 18-55mm, 55-250mm, and the 50mm lens. I just bought the 18-200mm today thinking I wouldnt have to switch lenses between my 18-55 and 55-250 on our upcoming trip. Is this a good excuse or am I missing something else that is different?

2. Should I try and sell my 18-55 and 55-250 now?
3. Im not sure what all the filters are about and dont know what I should buy. UV and polarized. I dont know what they are used for and if I should buy them for all my lenses.

thanks for any help.

The 18-200 is, as said already, all about convenience. That's it's advantage. It's disadvantages is that it's going to be slower, a little heavier and have lower image quality than than the 18-55/55-250 combination. It's up to each photographer to decide if the convenience is worth the trade offs.

Filters... skip the UV filters. They can cause many problems (more flare, loss of sharpness, ghosting, etc) all in the name of protection since they serve no other purpose with digital. Get a lens hood and keep it on when you're out shooting and it will protect the end of your lens and actually serve a useful purpose without degrading your image quality. As for other filters, a polarizer can certainly come in handy in some situations, as can a neutral density filter.

 

[photo_chick]

Disneyworld. How noticeable is the quality going to be for someone that is new to photography?

How much you notice really depends on how well developed your visual aesthetic already is. Some people will pick up on things right away and some never see the difference. The main thing may notice as a new photographer is that your images just won't be all that sharp. And you may notice that they don't really pop SOOC but you probably won't know why.

 

[nbaresejr]

We were at in the same position at some point when we started out. My 1st trip i used the 18-55 and 55-250 that you have. My images were fine but they were lacking to me. Until you buy good glass you wont realize what you are missing.

The extra reach past 55 on the 18-200 is only really needed at the Animal Kingdom. Everything else you can get away with the 18-55 and in some cases you will find the 18 is not wide enough.

If you dont want to change lenses stick with that. If you think your going to want better quality return it and save for a sigma or tamron 17-50 2.8. great lenses.

 

[SplashMo]

The 17-50 f2.8 places you in a much better position. THis is the most useful range and hte faster glass will make a huge diffrence in how pleasent your camera is to use...

 

[KAYLI'S DAD]

We were at in the same position at some point when we started out. My 1st trip i used the 18-55 and 55-250 that you have. My images were fine but they were lacking to me. Until you buy good glass you wont realize what you are missing.

The extra reach past 55 on the 18-200 is only really needed at the Animal Kingdom. Everything else you can get away with the 18-55 and in some cases you will find the 18 is not wide enough.

If you dont want to change lenses stick with that. If you think your going to want better quality return it and save for a sigma or tamron 17-50 2.8. great lenses.

I did notice last year that I really only used the 55-250 on the safari ride at animal kingdom and maybe a couple of the castle just playing around.

How is the tamron 17-50 better than the canon 18-55? Is it because the lower F2.8 and I think the 18-55 is F3.5.

 

[mom2rtk]

I did notice last year that I really only used the 55-250 on the safari ride at animal kingdom and maybe a couple of the castle just playing around.

How is the tamron 17-50 better than the canon 18-55? Is it because the lower F2.8 and I think the 18-55 is F3.5.

That 2.8 would be throughout the entire range of the lens. The 3.5 is not.

I have heard great things about the Tamron. But the better things have been about the non VC (stabilized) version. Your Canon has Image Stabilization. But I'd still probably choose the Tamron.

I have the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 but it's more than twice the price of the Tamron I think.

 

[photo_chick]

I did notice last year that I really only used the 55-250 on the safari ride at animal kingdom and maybe a couple of the castle just playing around.

How is the tamron 17-50 better than the canon 18-55? Is it because the lower F2.8 and I think the 18-55 is F3.5.

In addition to being a constant f/2.8 (you'll really notice that on the long end where the Canon is f/5.6), the Tamron (the non VC version at least) is reportedly a tiny bit sharper than the Canon 18-55 IS. But honestly, the Canon 18-55 is a solid lens and unless you just need a faster lens I don't know that I'd run out and replace it just yet. It's been said the most expensive lens is the one you buy twice on this board a number of times, and it's true. Buying lenses without being sure of what you really need is a quick way to end up with lenses you don't use. It really does pay to make sure you know what you're buying and how it will help you.

 

[mom2rtk]

I also found myself wanting more reach at DHS. But that's mostly for the shows. If you don't see (or care to photograph) the shows, you probably could get by without the longer lens there too.

 

[SplashMo]

You might enjoy picking up a P&S like the Panasonic LX7 to carry with you (about $300). Instead of the lens...

 

[havoc315]

In addition to being a constant f/2.8 (you'll really notice that on the long end where the Canon is f/5.6), the Tamron (the non VC version at least) is reportedly a tiny bit sharper than the Canon 18-55 IS. But honestly, the Canon 18-55 is a solid lens and unless you just need a faster lens I don't know that I'd run out and replace it just yet. It's been said the most expensive lens is the one you buy twice on this board a number of times, and it's true. Buying lenses without being sure of what you really need is a quick way to end up with lenses you don't use. It really does pay to make sure you know what you're buying and how it will help you.

I don't know Canon lenses first hand, so I'll defer on the quality of the Canon kit lens. I do use the Tamron 17-50 with my Sony. It is very good, but not spectacular. When I don't need to zoom out, I prefer my nifty fifty.

But besides a possible upgrade in image quality, the 17-50/2.8 would have a real advantage at Disney World. The faster lens will perform significantly better in low light. You can get some dark ride shots that would be impossible with the kit lens. (Though for the darkest of the dark rides, you would need an even faster lens). The 2.8 would also be very helpful for nighttime shooting, evening parades, etc.
If you really intend just to shoot in good outdoor daylight, then I honestly don't know whether the Tamron is a worthy upgrade. But if you want to shoot in more challenging situations without a flash, then it should be a consideration.

 

[nbaresejr]

In addition to being a constant f/2.8 (you'll really notice that on the long end where the Canon is f/5.6), the Tamron (the non VC version at least) is reportedly a tiny bit sharper than the Canon 18-55 IS. But honestly, the Canon 18-55 is a solid lens and unless you just need a faster lens I don't know that I'd run out and replace it just yet. It's been said the most expensive lens is the one you buy twice on this board a number of times, and it's true. Buying lenses without being sure of what you really need is a quick way to end up with lenses you don't use. It really does pay to make sure you know what you're buying and how it will help you.

I have to disagree with some of that. My Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS is much much sharper then my kit 18-55. The canon kit lens is regarded as a good kit lens but thats really all it is. It will take good images but the 2 dont compare in my opinion.

I decided on the Sigma over the Tamron VC because of the many many reviews that say the sigma is a better lens. The Non VC version people say is better but i wanted OS, IS or VC (all the same thing).

I do want more reach at times but its sharp enough where cropping it is no problem at all.

 

[bob100]

3. Im not sure what all the filters are about and dont know what I should buy. UV and polarized. I dont know what they are used for and if I should buy them for all my lenses.

thanks for any help.

yes, skip the UV filters. they negatively affect auto focusing and image quality.