One lens with wide range or switch lenses?

Hi guys, I have posted a thread last night about my consideration of an upgrade lens, however I realized a fundamental cause of my recent urge of upgrade lol

I already have the best budget walkaround lens, which is of course the 18-55mm IS kit lens. Also from good reviews, the best budget telezoom for its money, the 55-250mm IS.

Why am I even considering upgrading the lens to anything that is NOT an L lens?

Range.

Firstly, I always bring my full gear since its not like I have a ton of lenses lol. That means I have 50mm f/1.8 together with the two lenses mentioned above, and 580EXII flash, and other things like diffusers and off-shoe cable and bla bla bla.

In some situations, I just dont like changing lens because not only it takes time, dust creeps through the optics every time I do that. Sometimes when with other people, changing lens for just one or two shot isnt really an option.

What do you guys think? Is there any way around this? Or am I being stubborn and should change lens more frequently to best utilize the two lenses that I have got?

Some people wanna travel light, but I really dont mind bringing the two lenses. I can live without the 50mm prime, but I definitely need my flash.

The answer to your question really depends on several factors such as:

• What sort of lighting situations do you want to work with?
  
• How large do you want to present your images (on print or screen)?
  
• Are you making your images for fussy clients or merely making snapshots for which image quality does not really matter?
  
• Do you need to keep your camera bag lightly loaded or can you afford to carry more weight?
  
• Can you afford to buy and use better and faster lenses?
  

I really think that forums such as these are proving that there are lots of people out there that think they need a DSLR, but would be better served with something more "generalized".

The whole point of a DSLR is to be able to change lenses. The point of changing lenses is that no single lens can do everything well. Lens design is an exercise in compromise, so the more "all round" the advertising for the lens says it is, the more its image quality has been compromised in some ways.

If you are not willing to change lenses, or buy good quality glass, the main reason for owning a DSLR is gone. There are some other advantages to a DSLR over a P&S type camera, but perhaps you would be better off with a good, fixed lens camera with a wide zoom range.

If you really want to make your DSLR choice work to its potential, you need to understand photographic principles, learn good technique, get the proper lens for the job at hand, and then post process according to the needs of the image. If that is not what you enjoy, you might have the wrong camera.

rral22, please, dont take things too extremely, ok?

Im not stupid enough to have spent 1200 pounds buying a DSLR and lenses and the best external flash money can buy, while at the same time not realize being able to change lens is a main advantage of DSLR.

FYI, I have also spent time learning photographic principles, I have read books and spent hours after hours trying to put the tips and techniques I read from the books into practice. That said, I may not be a good photographer, but that doesn't mean that I don't care.

Im not a moronic rich person who thinks DSLR must be better than P&S, then go buy a bunch of gears and not paying attention to the fundamental photography techniques, then come onto a professional photography forum to whine about not wanting to change lens.

You missed my whole point mate.

Changing lens requires time, and time in some situation is very important. Otherwise, why would you see people with 3 Canon 1D Mark III strapped on their necks? If you are in a studio of course you can change lens a thousand times while the model stands and wait. In a more casual setting this may not be the case, and certainly in an ongoing event nobody is gonna wait for you. The magician isnt going to stop his trick because you were changing lens, the entertained audience won't stop laughing because they see you change lens.

rral22 said that the whole point to DSLRs was that you could change lenses. But, that's only part of the picture.

One of the main (and earliest, for that matter) advantages to using an SLR and now DSLRs is that you can view, compose, check DOF, etc of the image directly through the camera lens, not through a range finder, and before you snap the shutter.

That was considered a big thing back in the day.

I see your point OP, but are you willing to sacrifice IQ for ease of use?

It's like having the same person do your taxes, represent you in court, clean your house, fix your computer, and cook your meals. Can one person do all of that? Someone probably can... The question is, would they be able to do all of that well? Probably not...

Those jack-of-all trade lenses do everything, not nothing well.

Gapton wrote in post #7874361
I already have the best budget walkaround lens, which is of course the 18-55mm IS kit lens. Also from good reviews, the best budget telezoom for its money, the 55-250mm IS.

Why am I even considering upgrading the lens to anything that is NOT an L lens?

Range.

Firstly, I always bring my full gear since its not like I have a ton of lenses lol. That means I have 50mm f/1.8 together with the two lenses mentioned above, and 580EXII flash, and other things like diffusers and off-shoe cable and bla bla bla.

In some situations, I just dont like changing lens because not only it takes time, dust creeps through the optics every time I do that. Sometimes when with other people, changing lens for just one or two shot isnt really an option.

What do you guys think? Is there any way around this? Or am I being stubborn and should change lens more frequently to best utilize the two lenses that I have got?

Some people wanna travel light, but I really dont mind bringing the two lenses. I can live without the 50mm prime, but I definitely need my flash.

I have that lens combination and also do not like to change lenses. One alternative is to find a zoom with the same qualities - e.g. the Tamron 18-270 but from what I've read it isn't quite the same imagewise compared to the 18-55IS and 55-250IS so .... if you find a good solution let us know

I used to think I wanted a superzoom instead of the 55-250 /18-55 because I hated lugging both. But when I looked at it, I would be spending $200-300 more to get less image quality. So now I have learned to just bring the lens that I think I will need most and 'see' from the focal lengths you have. There will still be plenty of opportunities for great pictures.

I did have the 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS combo. Great budget duo. However, I also hated changing lenses. I'm not lazy or against the actual lens changing process, but like the OP I hated missing precious shots just because I had the wrong lens on. And I don't want to walk-around on vacation with 2-3 different bodies with different lenses on them either. PLus the plastic lens mount on those are obviously not as durable as metal mounts.

Yes, dSLR'r are great partly because you can change lenses and put the one on that's best for a particular application. But DSLRs are more than just that. Dynamic range, low noise, DOF, etc. A P&S cannot compete with these at all, they may have a great zoom range but come on, nothing else goes in their favor (except size).

So why would it be a stupid idea to use a superzoom lens on a DSLR??? I sold my Canon combo and bought the above mentioned Tamron 18-270 VC. Did I give up IQ? Well, not in the 18-100mm range. And maybe only a tiny bit above that.

As a matter of fact, one forum member has the same dilemma and asked me to email him various RAW files of pictures taken with my Tamron superzoom. I have emailed him about a dozen RAW files, all kinds of focal length. He was amazed and impressed by the image quality, he never thought (just like many others) the Tamron can do those pictures. He also believes that he will definitely not give up anything in the 18-55 kit zoom range, actually gain some speed since the Tamron is a bit faster than the kit zoom (3.5 - 4.5 in that range). As for the longer focal lengths, he concluded that the difference between the 55-250 IS and the Tamron is too little to justify holding on to both.

I had all three of these lenses at the same time. Took a bunch of comparison images, controlled tests on tripod etc. Then I concluded that I wasn't going to give up much in terms of IQ but gain a lot in convenience and probably won't miss a shot because of having the wrong lens on the camera. So I sold my Canons. Let's face it, neither of those Canons are pro lenses, and nor is the Tamron. If I need pro results I can rent (or buy when I get rich ) multiple L lenses and better bodies etc. In the meantime I'll just use my Tamron.

I also have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS which is a great lens, but I mostly have my Tamron on my camera, unless I exclusively shoot birds (then it's BigmOS time).

Gapton wrote in post #7874361
Hi guys, I have posted a thread last night about my consideration of an upgrade lens, however I realized a fundamental cause of my recent urge of upgrade lol

I already have the best budget walkaround lens, which is of course the 18-55mm IS kit lens. Also from good reviews, the best budget telezoom for its money, the 55-250mm IS.

Why am I even considering upgrading the lens to anything that is NOT an L lens?

Range.

Firstly, I always bring my full gear since its not like I have a ton of lenses lol. That means I have 50mm f/1.8 together with the two lenses mentioned above, and 580EXII flash, and other things like diffusers and off-shoe cable and bla bla bla.

In some situations, I just dont like changing lens because not only it takes time, dust creeps through the optics every time I do that. Sometimes when with other people, changing lens for just one or two shot isnt really an option.

What do you guys think? Is there any way around this? Or am I being stubborn and should change lens more frequently to best utilize the two lenses that I have got?

Some people wanna travel light, but I really dont mind bringing the two lenses. I can live without the 50mm prime, but I definitely need my flash.

Why not look through all your current photos and ascertain what focal length you mostly use - that will determine what lens will suit your needs without having to unnecessarily changing lenses. Maybe your shots fall between 20 and 80 or 50 and 150 - there are lenses that will incorporate those lengths. But if you find that your photos vary from 18 all the way to 250, then something like the Tamron 18-270 would be perfect. But always remember, that long range focal length lenses do give up something in terms of IQ (however little) in exchange for the range - you have to decide if that sacrifice is worth it to avoid carrying and changing lenses.

Also, bear in mind that dust on sensors can always be cleaned...or even just edited out if not major. If you constantly worry about dust you're restricting youself severely.

Gapton wrote in post #7875128
rral22, please, dont take things too extremely, ok?

Im not stupid enough to have spent 1200 pounds buying a DSLR and lenses and the best external flash money can buy, while at the same time not realize being able to change lens is a main advantage of DSLR.

FYI, I have also spent time learning photographic principles, I have read books and spent hours after hours trying to put the tips and techniques I read from the books into practice. That said, I may not be a good photographer, but that doesn't mean that I don't care.

Im not a moronic rich person who thinks DSLR must be better than P&S, then go buy a bunch of gears and not paying attention to the fundamental photography techniques, then come onto a professional photography forum to whine about not wanting to change lens.

You missed my whole point mate.

Changing lens requires time, and time in some situation is very important. Otherwise, why would you see people with 3 Canon 1D Mark III strapped on their necks? If you are in a studio of course you can change lens a thousand times while the model stands and wait. In a more casual setting this may not be the case, and certainly in an ongoing event nobody is gonna wait for you. The magician isnt going to stop his trick because you were changing lens, the entertained audience won't stop laughing because they see you change lens.

Wow! Sorry. I didn't mean to insult you, just give some advice. Your OP sounded to me like you wanted to make your DSLR work like a good fixed lens superzoom, so I recommended that.

Apparently was wrong about that. My apology.

I will stand by my statement that there are many people who would actually be better served by the superzoom styles of camera than they are by a DSLR that they bought to "improve" their photography, and then find the DSLR to require more "work" to make it work properly than they want to put into their photography. DSLR marketing is very powerful.

If that doesn't apply to you, I'm sorry you saw it as an insult. It was not meant that way at all.

Canon has the EF-S 18-200, and it has IS, but I haven't heard enough about it to know how it compares. I'm personally leery about a lens with that much range, because we normally assume that it compromises quality, but for casual use it may be fine. Check it out!

pridash wrote in post #7876317
Why not look through all your current photos and ascertain what focal length you mostly use - that will determine what lens will suit your needs without having to unnecessarily changing lenses. Maybe your shots fall between 20 and 80 or 50 and 150 - there are lenses that will incorporate those lengths. But if you find that your photos vary from 18 all the way to 250, then something like the Tamron 18-270 would be perfect. But always remember, that long range focal length lenses do give up something in terms of IQ (however little) in exchange for the range - you have to decide if that sacrifice is worth it to avoid carrying and changing lenses.

Also, bear in mind that dust on sensors can always be cleaned...or even just edited out if not major. If you constantly worry about dust you're restricting youself severely.

BRAVO pridash!!!

Man you and I need to grab a beer sometime because we've got a very similar take on photography! I'm buying the first round!

Back to the question at hand. I think pradish is hitting the nail on the head with this advice.

Go back into your photo archive and see where most of your pictures fall.

When I upgraded lens the last time I did this. My go to walk around lens at the time was a 28-135 IS. And I wanted something faster.

I checked my photos and most were between 28-40mm and 70-110mm or so.

I decided to go to the 24-105mm because it had the range I needed. I really wanted the 2.8 of the the 24-70 but I didn't feel that I could give up that range I was used to using. And I decided I wanted to stay with a lens with IS as my main walkaround lens.

For me the 24-105 stays on my camera much more than a 17-55 2.8 IS would because I often use the higher range and rarely use the wider end. Are both great lens..sure they are but it really a personal choice.

As you mentioned you don't like changing lens a 24-105 might be better for you than a 17-55 and 70-200 combo. Or if you shoot most a 70-200mm maybe that's the best lens for your style of photography.

I think that once you get into your photos your going to see that you have a grouping at certain ranges. Use them to help you decide what lens you won't have to change as often.

I do change lens when necessary but only for really wide (10-22) or really far (70-200).

gabebalazs wrote in post #7875587
So why would it be a stupid idea to use a superzoom lens on a DSLR??? I sold my Canon combo and bought the above mentioned Tamron 18-270 VC. Did I give up IQ? Well, not in the 18-100mm range. And maybe only a tiny bit above that.
As a matter of fact, one forum member has the same dilemma and asked me to email him various RAW files of pictures taken with my Tamron superzoom. I have emailed him about a dozen RAW files, all kinds of focal length. He was amazed and impressed by the image quality, he never thought (just like many others) the Tamron can do those pictures. He also believes that he will definitely not give up anything in the 18-55 kit zoom range, actually gain some speed since the Tamron is a bit faster than the kit zoom (3.5 - 4.5 in that range). As for the longer focal lengths, he concluded that the difference between the 55-250 IS and the Tamron is too little to justify holding on to both.

I had all three of these lenses at the same time. Took a bunch of comparison images, controlled tests on tripod etc. Then I concluded that I wasn't going to give up much in terms of IQ but gain a lot in convenience and probably won't miss a shot because of having the wrong lens on the camera. So I sold my Canons. Let's face it, neither of those Canons are pro lenses, and nor is the Tamron. If I need pro results I can rent (or buy when I get rich ) multiple L lenses and better bodies etc. In the meantime I'll just use my Tamron.

I also have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS which is a great lens, but I mostly have my Tamron on my camera, unless I exclusively shoot birds (then it's BigmOS time).

this is encouraging - I might give the Tamron 18-270 another look, wish it would come down in price but like other lens probably not anytime soon!

xaviar13 wrote in post #7877241
BRAVO pridash!!!

Man you and I need to grab a beer sometime because we've got a very similar take on photography! I'm buying the first round!

Back to the question at hand. I think pradish is hitting the nail on the head with this advice.

Go back into your photo archive and see where most of your pictures fall.

When I upgraded lens the last time I did this. My go to walk around lens at the time was a 28-135 IS. And I wanted something faster.

I checked my photos and most were between 28-40mm and 70-110mm or so.

I decided to go to the 24-105mm because it had the range I needed. I really wanted the 2.8 of the the 24-70 but I didn't feel that I could give up that range I was used to using. And I decided I wanted to stay with a lens with IS as my main walkaround lens.

For me the 24-105 stays on my camera much more than a 17-55 2.8 IS would because I often use the higher range and rarely use the wider end. Are both great lens..sure they are but it really a personal choice.

As you mentioned you don't like changing lens a 24-105 might be better for you than a 17-55 and 70-200 combo. Or if you shoot most a 70-200mm maybe that's the best lens for your style of photography.

I think that once you get into your photos your going to see that you have a grouping at certain ranges. Use them to help you decide what lens you won't have to change as often.

I do change lens when necessary but only for really wide (10-22) or really far (70-200).

Thanks! Hope you live near London, otherwise it's really gonna be an expensive beer!

Another thought...if you really hate changing lenses, get another body and mount the 2 lenses that cover the most range without sacrificing image quality. No fumbling about changing lenses, no dust issues. Job done.

Big camera bag - yes, but still, job done.