Which Lens would be best purchase?

[vbarnett06]

I have a Canon T1i and the kit 18-55 lens. I am going to purchase a new lens soon... Which would be better for my next lens?

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens
or
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens

Hope the links work...Not good at that kind of thing anymore.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

It depends on what you want to do. Are you looking to replace the 18-55 with better, faster glass or do you want more zoom with a consumer lens? When I purchase lenses, I have a roadmap of what I want to purchase and why. Like most, I started out with the 18-55 and a 50-200 consumer lens. Since then I have gone with faster lenses and zooms out to 300 with the option of adding a teleconverter. I also added a Sigma 30mm f1.4 because I'm obsessed with getting the dark ride images. Because I shoot a lot of motorsports anything over 300mm is kind of a waste. If I was shooting birds in flight and nature then I probably would go longer. You need to look at your style and choose a direction you want to go and then choose the lenses to get you there. The biggest mistake I see people make is buying lenses just to buy without any solid direction. Someone on this forum made the statement that the most expensive lens is the one you buy twice!

 

[cbombard]

What is the main reason for the purchase?

For what it is worth I would get the 18-200.. I have a nikon and went with an 18-250 as my second lens.. I did this because I did not mind the extra weight, but really really did not want to be constantly switching lenses while in the parks.. So.. that said.. the sigma 18-250 is my primary lens.. The only other one I carry is a 50mm prime..

From what I have been told.. the other lens is GREAT all around if you do not need the extra zoom.. as it is also better in lower light situations (f/2.8)..

So.. Do you want a "fast" lens or more zoom?

Like I mentioned above.. I went with more versatility (for how I use the camera at least). It is great at the kids soccer games, and when the DD is on stage.. and great at AK..


I hope these helps..

 

[vbarnett06]

I want a better lens than the stock lens I've been using for the last year and a half. I know the 18-200 is the most practical everyday purchase, and also the most affordable. I just keep this about how fast the other lens is comparably. The faster lens would be good in darker situations, but I would continue without a zoom. Hmm... Maybe, I could get the 18-200 and a faster prime...

Josh

 

[mom2rtk]

I want a better lens than the stock lens I've been using for the last year and a half. I know the 18-200 is the most practical everyday purchase, and also the most affordable. I just keep this about how fast the other lens is comparably. The faster lens would be good in darker situations, but I would continue without a zoom. Hmm... Maybe, I could get the 18-200 and a faster prime...

Josh

Josh, if you are craving better glass then you should get the 17-55. It is everything they say it is.

If you are craving extra reach, then get the 18-200. I will tell you that I own the Tamron 18-270 which is a pretty well-reviewed all-in-one lens. But since I got the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, I have put the Tamron back on my camera only a few times. I'm too spoiled by the IQ of the Canon.

If you have nothing else beyond that 55mm reach, then you will have to address that at some point. But if you want better glass, you will likely still want better glass after buying the 18-200.

The primes are great but be careful choosing the right length for what you want to shoot. My first prime was the 50mm f/1.8. I've only used it a couple of times. I greatly prefer the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I guess I should since it cost so much more. (Mostly I just like the 30mm length compared to the 50mm length). The more expensive Sigma 30 was a much better investment for me than the $100 I spent on the nifty fifty since I never use it.

I'm the one always saying the most expensive lens is the one you buy twice. My point is that if what you buy does not ultimately meet your needs or satisfy the desire for what you were seeking, you will likely be shelling out some more dough very soon.

FWIW........ there are less expensive options for a faster 17-55ish lens. Tamron makes one as does Sigma. I did a lot of research on this before committing to the cost of the Canon lens. The Tamron non stabilized version is very will reviewed here on these boards. But the focus motor is annoyingly loud. And the last thing I needed was my kids hearing me focusing the camera on them. The teens would probably be gone before I got off a shot. But it's said to be a very sharp lens. They do make a stabilized version of this but it is said to have lost some of the sharpenss that lens was known for when they added the stabilizlation. Since I have rather unsteady hands, I did know I wanted a stabilized lens.

Good luck with your choice. Be sure to let us know what you do!

 

[bob100]

I have a Canon T1i and the kit 18-55 lens. I am going to purchase a new lens soon... Which would be better for my next lens?

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens
or
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens

Hope the links work...Not good at that kind of thing anymore.

What do you think you need?
need longer reach? telephoto?
larger aperture?
wider angle?

Look at the inexpensive but sharp Canon 55-250IS telephoto ($150)
Or if you think you need a larger aperture with a wider angle than the 50mm look at the Sigma 30mm 1.4
But sometimes an external flash will add more to your shot than lens!

 

[eblong]

I recently went to a Sigma 18-250 3.5 with OS (their image stab name). I doubt my 18-55 or my 70-300 will come back out of the case any time soon. It's got faster glass, great image, and the OS has performed well. A bit heavy 2 oz) but hey, I'm not dragging around two or three lenses any more.

 

[mom2rtk]

I recently went to a Sigma 18-250 3.5 with OS (their image stab name). I doubt my 18-55 or my 70-300 will come back out of the case any time soon. It's got faster glass, great image, and the OS has performed well. A bit heavy 2 oz) but hey, I'm not dragging around two or three lenses any more.

The all-in-one's serve a great purpose. But I would't call them fast. The 3.5 applies only to the wide end. As you zoom, the maximum aperture gets smaller all the way down to 6.3.

 

[eblong]

The all-in-one's serve a great purpose. But I would't call them fast. The 3.5 applies only to the wide end. As you zoom, the maximum aperture gets smaller all the way down to 6.3.

Agree. Everything is relative, of course. compared to my Canon 70-300 IS USM, it's like greased lightning (if lightning moved at the speed of a bicycle ;-).

 

[mom2rtk]

Agree. Everything is relative, of course. compared to my Canon 70-300 IS USM, it's like greased lightning (if lightning moved at the speed of a bicycle ;-).

LOL! I've heard that about that lens!

 

[NLD]

I do more low-light shooting than telephoto, so to me it's a no-brainer, I'd want that 17-55 2.8.

 

[photo_chick]

I want a better lens than the stock lens I've been using for the last year and a half. I know the 18-200 is the most practical everyday purchase, and also the most affordable. I just keep this about how fast the other lens is comparably. The faster lens would be good in darker situations, but I would continue without a zoom. Hmm... Maybe, I could get the 18-200 and a faster prime...

Josh

Then don't get the all in one 18-200. You will get more reach but it won't be as good optically in places as your kit lens. THe 17-55 is an excellent upgrade if improving lens performance is your goal.

 

[krb2g]

I use my 55-200 telephoto less than I should because usually I want a wider-angle option (the 18-55 kit lens) or a faster option (the 35mm f/1.8). Unless you find yourself continually wanting the zoom (wildlife, sports, for example), I'd get the faster glass first and then upgrade the zoom later.