Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Jul 2013 (Sunday) 03:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1 superzoom or 2 smaller zoom

 
canondslr
Senior Member
940 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: USA
     
Jul 07, 2013 03:40 |  #1

Hi Guys..
Would you prefer 1 superzoom (ex: 18-200) or 2 smaller zoom (ex: 18-55 + 55-200).
I prefer 18-200 so I dont need to change lens but also thinking that 2 smaller zoom could be nice because if I know I dont need one or the other I can just leave 1 at home, let say I know I'll shoot in smaller place, I can just leave 55-200 at home and have lighter kit.
Please let me know your choice and why.
Thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PH68
Senior Member
599 posts
Joined Jun 2013
Location: England
     
Jul 07, 2013 03:47 |  #2

I've used all 3 lenses you mentioned.
Started with the 18-55 and 55-250, then bought the 18-200 instead.

All are OK, but not great.
I soon realised that a faster lens was more important than a superzoom, particularly in low light indoors.
Most of my pictures were in either the wide range , or at 200m , with little inbetween.
So I now have a fast general zoom, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC and a telephoto prime.
The image quality is far better than the 3 Canon lens I began with.


Fuji XE1 ~ XF18 ~ XF27 ~ XF60 ~ XC50-230

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Jul 07, 2013 05:11 |  #3

canondslr wrote in post #16098115 (external link)
Hi Guys..
Would you prefer 1 superzoom (ex: 18-200) or 2 smaller zoom (ex: 18-55 + 55-200).
I prefer 18-200 so I dont need to change lens but also thinking that 2 smaller zoom could be nice because if I know I dont need one or the other I can just leave 1 at home, let say I know I'll shoot in smaller place, I can just leave 55-200 at home and have lighter kit.
Please let me know your choice and why.
Thanks.

Perhaps actual pictures from a Canon 18-200mm image stabilizer lens can help answer the question.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …0806a0003_zpsd2​54bcff.jpg (external link)



PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …131a0000a_zps9e​f7a501.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …806e0000a_zpsd1​fead0d.jpg (external link)


There are no mysterious drawbacks from the Canon 18-200mm IS lens in actual use. You put the lens on a camera, select the focal length and framing, then push the shutter button. Images such as those shown above come out of the camera with no problems or mysteries.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OneJZsupra
Goldmember
Avatar
2,378 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Guam
     
Jul 07, 2013 06:21 |  #4

You should skip all of that and get the ef-s 15-85 is lens, have a look at the reviews here.


Gear List | Feed Back | My Site (external link)
YN RF-603 O-ring solution


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,980 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4093
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 07, 2013 11:57 |  #5

All of the "superzooms", even the 28-300mm L, seem to give poorer contrast, resolution, and sharpness than the zooms with less range. If you want superb image quality, then you will be better off using multiple zoom lenses. If convenience is of more importance to you, then the zooms with tons of range, like the 11x range of the 18-200 and 28-300, would be a better choice. It is no coincidence that two of Canon's zooms with the best image quality, the new 70-200 and the 200-400, have very short ranges of 2.9x and 2x (w/o the TC), respectively.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,207 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2658
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 07, 2013 12:47 |  #6

i'd rather have two


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,140 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 476
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:44 |  #7

According to photozone.de review site, 18-55 and 55-250 have much better IQ than Canon 18-200. Here is their verdict for 18-200:

The Canon lens has a couple of weak spots. At 18mm the border resolution is soft and heavy vignetting, extreme barrel distortion and CA problems don't help either. The situation improves significantly at 24mm and 50mm before deteriorating again towards the long end of the range. The situation would have been a bit different a couple of years ago when the sensor requirements were lower but combined with the EOS 50D the lens is somewhat outdated straight from the start. Better look elsewhere unless you still intend to use an older generation DSLR for a while.

In terms of weight, the two kit lenses are actually lighter (by 10g) than 18-200 (200g+390g vs. 600g).

Finally, you get a bit more reach with the kit lenses.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jul 07, 2013 14:52 |  #8

If not having to change lenses is your priority, get the 18-200. I've never used one but it can't possibly be horrible. Be advised that you will take a small IQ hit. If that is acceptable to you, go for it. I realize that I could get some IQ advantage by spending a ton of money on new glass. IQ is generally close to the last thing I consider when buying a lens. I buy for zoom-range, aperture, focus speed or what ever I need that I don't have. If convenience is your top priority, I am sure you will be happy with the 18-200, or maybe even Tamron's 18-270. Nothing wrong with being happy with your equipment.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,980 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4093
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 07, 2013 15:58 |  #9

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16099282 (external link)
IQ is generally close to the last thing I consider when buying a lens.

Wow. I had to read that twice to be sure it said what I thought it said. If IQ in a lens is not important to you, then how are you able to take images with awesome image quality? Don't the optics of the lens have an enormous effect on the quality of the final image? The best sensor in the world won't give you perfect pictures if you match it with a sub-par lens. If you ignore lens IQ when making a lens purchase, then the quality of your images will suffer - there's just no way around that.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Jul 07, 2013 16:08 |  #10

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16099462 (external link)
Wow. I had to read that twice to be sure it said what I thought it said. If IQ in a lens is not important to you, then how are you able to take images with awesome image quality? Don't the optics of the lens have an enormous effect on the quality of the final image? The best sensor in the world won't give you perfect pictures if you match it with a sub-par lens. If you ignore lens IQ when making a lens purchase, then the quality of your images will suffer - there's just no way around that.

I agree with him. You get the lens for the features it offers, not for the image quality. If you need a hyperzoom, it means you can't or don't want to change lenses and that's the only lens that'll suit you.

I buy for zoom-range, aperture, focus speed or what ever I need that I don't have.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Jul 07, 2013 16:12 |  #11

canondslr wrote in post #16098115 (external link)
Hi Guys..
Would you prefer 1 superzoom (ex: 18-200) or 2 smaller zoom (ex: 18-55 + 55-200).
I prefer 18-200 so I dont need to change lens but also thinking that 2 smaller zoom could be nice because if I know I dont need one or the other I can just leave 1 at home, let say I know I'll shoot in smaller place, I can just leave 55-200 at home and have lighter kit.
Please let me know your choice and why.
Thanks.

Tamron 18-270. For me, the convenience of not having to swap lenses beats the slightly better IQ of covering that range with multiple lenses about 90% of the time. There are exceptions when I'll slap on a prime, but those are relatively rare for my shooting.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jul 07, 2013 16:38 |  #12

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16099462 (external link)
Wow. I had to read that twice to be sure it said what I thought it said. If IQ in a lens is not important to you, then how are you able to take images with awesome image quality? Don't the optics of the lens have an enormous effect on the quality of the final image? The best sensor in the world won't give you perfect pictures if you match it with a sub-par lens. If you ignore lens IQ when making a lens purchase, then the quality of your images will suffer - there's just no way around that.

What? This makes no sense. Say you put IQ first. Say the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 USM II is THE highest IQ lens you can get. So what? How is it going to help you take a photo at 400mm f/2.8, or 24mm f/1.4? You can't possibly make the shot you want, but damn, you've got a really nice lens.

A second point, if you please. There is a LOT more to an image than IQ. A lot more. Exposure, composition, content, framing, PP, emotion, love and the list goes on. I have a picture of my grandson, aged 3 years, that he took of himself. Photographically speaking it is horrible. I love it. His mother loves it. If you are as consumed by IQ as your post seems to suggest, you are missing the entire point of photography.

I would suppose that there are a handful, at best, of photographers in the world who NEED THE BEST IQ lens, and can make it perform at that level all the time. I am not among them. I shoot the best equipment I can afford. If I had the money, I'd be shooting a 1Dx and a 24-70 II. I don't. I am content with my 60D and Tamron 28-75. I come from a film background. Forty years ago nobody worried about IQ. You bought a lens for just the reasons I listed: focal length/zoom range, aperture and characteristics of the lens. The current obsession with IQ is a by-product of the digital age. I for one, make better photographs when I worry about the image, not the image quality. I prefer it that way.

EDIT: Tom, I had a look at your gallery. Exquisite images. Perhaps we just have a different perspective on photography. I can see that you take top-quality images and I assume you use top-quality equipment. Congratulations on your equipment and your talent. I have lesser degrees of both. Most of the shots I take are family-snap-shot-remember-the-moment types of images. We seem to have different philosophies on the art of photography. Photography is a broad term, there is room for all of us, and our equipment and talent under that umbrella.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,980 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4093
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 07, 2013 17:30 |  #13

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16099583 (external link)
Most of the shots I take are family-snap-shot-remember-the-moment types of images. We seem to have different philosophies on the art of photography. Photography is a broad term, there is room for all of us, and our equipment and talent under that umbrella.

Tommy,

Thank you for your response. I value seeing photography from someone else's perspective. I must admit, I would probably find photography more fun and less stressful if I did not put so much emphasis on IQ. But then the results may not be entirely pleasing to me. There's always a tradeoff, isn't there?!


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jul 07, 2013 18:06 |  #14

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16099708 (external link)
Tommy,

Thank you for your response. I value seeing photography from someone else's perspective. I must admit, I would probably find photography more fun and less stressful if I did not put so much emphasis on IQ. But then the results may not be entirely pleasing to me. There's always a tradeoff, isn't there?!

As I said, I looked at your images. Please, do continue whatever it is you are doing. Lots of us aspire to your skill level. I know I do.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
reprazent
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 07, 2013 18:21 |  #15

Superzooms have their place, (one lens travel solution for example) but if IQ is your main concern then you're better off with the kitzooms. IMO these lenses are underrated. Sure they are plasticky, but they are also lightweight and small.


gearlist | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,875 views & 0 likes for this thread
1 superzoom or 2 smaller zoom
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KopiLuwak
989 guests, 200 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.