lens help

[RadioNate]

and to piggyback further on this thread - has anyone tried the new 18-200 IS?? I have the 28-135 and really don't like it. I need a wider shot but I love having a zoom capability w/out changing lenses.

 

[Master Mason]

Like the OP, I'm facing a lens delema, but mine's a little different.

Do I buy the Xsi with the 18-55mm and get the 55-250mm?
Pro: Better range for wide angle and telephoto Con: carrying around another lens

Or

Do I buy just the body and get the 28-135mm?
Pro: only having one lens. Con: not as much wide angle or telephoto range.

The three lenses all have the IS built in and the packages have a similar price in the long run ($75 difference). I really like the idea of only carrying one lens, but is it worth it and is it a better lens than the other two?

and to piggyback further on this thread - has anyone tried the new 18-200 IS?? I have the 28-135 and really don't like it. I need a wider shot but I love having a zoom capability w/out changing lenses.

I have to ask you both the same question.

What are you shooting and what conditions are you shooting under. Without that information, no one can recommend anything to you.

As for the 18-200 with superzooms such as this, you will always have degredation at both ends of the spectrum, only you can decide if that is worth it to you for the convienience.

 

[greens_in_WA]

and to piggyback further on this thread - has anyone tried the new 18-200 IS?? I have the 28-135 and really don't like it. I need a wider shot but I love having a zoom capability w/out changing lenses.

ugh! Did you have to tell me about the 18-200mm? Now I'm further torn

plus it's currently $700

 

[RadioNate]

I have to ask you both the same question.

What are you shooting and what conditions are you shooting under. Without that information, no one can recommend anything to you.

As for the 18-200 with superzooms such as this, you will always have degredation at both ends of the spectrum, only you can decide if that is worth it to you for the convienience.

well I am a super casual user. I generally take pics of my kids, family and friends. I have no aspirations to be a pro. There are many days I like my old S2IS better than the dSLR and frequently use my crummy pocket P&S.

The only reason I went dSLR was for the faster shutter speeds. Even my S2IS couldn't keep up with my kids ... especially during sports.

I like the all in one of the 28-135 but it doesn't do well in low light and I find myself wanting a wider angle a lot around the house. I have a 70-200 I use for soccer games.

I don't think L glass will be in the budget.

 

[greens_in_WA]

I have to ask you both the same question.

What are you shooting and what conditions are you shooting under. Without that information, no one can recommend anything to you.

As for the 18-200 with superzooms such as this, you will always have degredation at both ends of the spectrum, only you can decide if that is worth it to you for the convienience.

Good point about the degridation, that and the price might tip me over the edge for going the 2 lens route.

Currently, it would be for vacation shots (89 days to WDW, but who's counting) and shots of the kids (dd7 & ds3). Going to be doing roadtrips to Grand Canyon and Yellowstone in the upcoming summers. I love taking landscape shots and other "artsy fartsy" type shots, but don't always get the time to do it.

My current SLR is a Minolta X700 with a 35-70mm and 70-210mm lenses, so I'm used to going with 2 lenses when I take it. I have a great camera bag, a Lowepro waist pack, that I use so carrying the extra lens is not a big deal, but trying to keep the number of items being carried is always a good thing.

 

[giantstu]

When travelling to Disney i take my EOS400 (XTI) and 18-200IS and my 50mm f1.8.
It is all i have needed, the EOS 1Dmk3 stays at home and i can't justify carrying my L series lenses( feel the weight of the 100-400)

I have never needed anymore and its too much to carry from the UK.

 

[Master Mason]

well I am a super casual user. I generally take pics of my kids, family and friends. I have no aspirations to be a pro. There are many days I like my old S2IS better than the dSLR and frequently use my crummy pocket P&S.

The only reason I went dSLR was for the faster shutter speeds. Even my S2IS couldn't keep up with my kids ... especially during sports.

I like the all in one of the 28-135 but it doesn't do well in low light and I find myself wanting a wider angle a lot around the house. I have a 70-200 I use for soccer games.

I don't think L glass will be in the budget.

If you shooting on bright sunny days all of the lenses being discussed will perform fine 18-55 IS 55-200 IS 28-135 IS and the 18-200 IS. The super zoom will have some degridation at both ends as previously mentioned. However, as soon as you get into less than stellar lighting all of them will start to suffer for not having very big apeture.

The IS will help for stationary items, but moving targets such as kids and sports the IS will not help freeze the action.

If sports are a big thing for you, and L glass isn't in the budget, I would look at third party fast glass. The sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the Tammarad (sp) 28-75 f/2.8 all get good reviews.

 

[Master Mason]

When travelling to Disney i take my EOS400 (XTI) and 18-200IS and my 50mm f1.8.
It is all i have needed, the EOS 1Dmk3 stays at home and i can't justify carrying my L series lenses( feel the weight of the 100-400)

I have never needed anymore and its too much to carry from the UK.

I carry 2 L's all the time, they are almost the only 2 lenses I use. I figure I spent a small fortune for them so I could take good pictures, I want to then be able to use them to take said pictues.

 

[RadioNate]

If you shooting on bright sunny days all of the lenses being discussed will perform fine 18-55 IS 55-200 IS 28-135 IS and the 18-200 IS. The super zoom will have some degridation at both ends as previously mentioned. However, as soon as you get into less than stellar lighting all of them will start to suffer for not having very big apeture.

The IS will help for stationary items, but moving targets such as kids and sports the IS will not help freeze the action.

If sports are a big thing for you, and L glass isn't in the budget, I would look at third party fast glass. The sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the Tammarad (sp) 28-75 f/2.8 all get good reviews.

what about lower light or indoor shots. I do shoot quite a bit indoor. Birthday parties, holidays, etc.

I have the 28-135 is but really was wondering if people had used the 18-200 and if it preforms better, equal or worse.

 

[mabas9395]

If you do a lot of indoor shots, you may want to think about getting an external flash. Something like the 430ex will do a lot more to improve the quality of your shots more than the subtle differences between consumer grade lenses. Just my two cents.

 

[pjacobi]

The only reason I went dSLR was for the faster shutter speeds.

I've seen you make this comment twice, but am puzzled.

Even my P/S camera is capable of 1/1250 second exposure. My dSLR is a little faster at 1/8000 second. Even my old film SLR topped out at 1/1000 second which is fast enough to stop most sports action.

If you need a particular shutter speed, shoot in Tv mode. I can even do this on my P/S camera!

A dSLR does allows you to shoot with at higher ISO and/or wider apertures, enabling a correct exposure at a with a higher shutter speed. Is this what you mean?

Instead of more equipment, I suggest learning more and practicing with the equipment that you are ready have.

Did you hear about the chef who went out and bought all new pots and pans? He was disappointed when the soup didn't taste any better!


-Paul

 

[boBQuincy]

To help clear the bad name of Canon's kit lens I offer two images taken with this "horrible" lens:

The reflection image is actually quite sharp and at 100% I can see the ripples in the water. The aqueduct image has a lens flare in it but to be fair I was shooting with the sun just out of the frame and used a really cheap polarizer (the only one I had in that size). I also used a lens hood but it is so short I doubt it helps much.

Imho the lens is not bad although when we come back to skill vs equipment there is no way the kit lens will ever be as sharp as the L's I usually carry.

 

[Groucho]

To help clear the bad name of Canon's kit lens I offer two images taken with this "horrible" lens:

Hmm... nobody's called it horrible in this thread. And nobody's questioned that it can do well in bright light.

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon's kit lens has been called a lot of things, but none of them good.
The first (non-IS) version was pretty bad actually, even though it could do ok at medium apertures. The new one still feels really cheap but as I say: anyone can spend money and make something good, but a real feeling of cheapness, well that's something money just can't buy.

 

[RadioNate]

I've seen you make this comment twice, but am puzzled.

Even my P/S camera is capable of 1/1250 second exposure. My dSLR is a little faster at 1/8000 second. Even my old film SLR topped out at 1/1000 second which is fast enough to stop most sports action.

If you need a particular shutter speed, shoot in Tv mode. I can even do this on my P/S camera!

A dSLR does allows you to shoot with at higher ISO and/or wider apertures, enabling a correct exposure at a with a higher shutter speed. Is this what you mean?

Instead of more equipment, I suggest learning more and practicing with the equipment that you are ready have.

Did you hear about the chef who went out and bought all new pots and pans? He was disappointed when the soup didn't taste any better!


-Paul

this is where my eyes glass over and roll back into my head.

Here is what I know.

When using my S2IS to shoot my DS's soccer games I frequently got very blurry photos. When I reached out to this board and others I was told that was because my shutter speeds were too low.

I was advised to buy a dSLR, I did. Photos are fine.

So take that for what it is worth.

I do understand the basic rules of photography. But I have a crappy eye. I'm not an artist, I just want photos of my friends and family that are the right color and in focus.

All I really wanted to know was if the newer 18-200 IS was a better quality (better build, better glass, improved IS) lens than the old 28-135 IS and if anyone here had used it. I just wondered how it preformed at the ends because that is where lenses with big ranges have problems.

 

[Groucho]

When using my S2IS to shoot my DS's soccer games I frequently got very blurry photos. When I reached out to this board and others I was told that was because my shutter speeds were too low.

I was advised to buy a dSLR, I did. Photos are fine.

So take that for what it is worth.

Well, it's either the larger aperture or the higher ISO that is allowing you to use higher shutter speeds... it's not that the PnS isn't capable of reasonably high shutter speeds, it's that the poor ISO performance and small aperture force it to use slow speeds. Kind of a cause vs symptom kind of thing. Hence the confusion.

 

[DizzyV6P]

All I really wanted to know was if the newer 18-200 IS was a better quality (better build, better glass, improved IS) lens than the old 28-135 IS and if anyone here had used it. I just wondered how it preformed at the ends because that is where lenses with big ranges have problems.

This link will answer your questions on the 18-200 IS

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578814&highlight=18-200

There's the Dpreview just released.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/