overlapping lens

ok after finding this forum I have been bitten by the bug. I buy lens and things for my camera even though I know I don't nned them. Lens for example are now overlapping but in my defense I do feel I get a different look from each lens even though they overlap in range sometimes. I have all cheap stuff by the way no L series stuff YET... but I have of course the kit lens 18-55 IS- 55-250 IS - 18-200 IS and the non IS 70-300.I like them all for different reasons. I hesitate to get rid of any of them because of the different results I get with them. anyone else have this issue or am I just weird?

You're just weird, I don't see how you can find the opportunity to mount your 18-55 when you already have 18-200.... and like wise 55-250 or 70-300 (you mean 75-300?) when you already have 55-250 or 75-300, not only are they overlapping, they're actually of the similar focal lengths.

If I were you, I simply have to pick the one which I think has been producing the best pictures and in this instance, I reckon 55-250 wins (plus the IS). I say, sell off 18-55 and 75-300 and get yourself a prime or uwa.

But if you like them all for different reasons then they are different - definition = no overlap.

If you are happy with your overlapping lens collection that's really all that matters. Personally I could see the logic for keeping the superzoom for conveinience, but I can't see keeping 2 telezooms of such similar length.

crn3371 wrote in post #8416877
If you are happy with your overlapping lens collection that's really all that matters. Personally I could see the logic for keeping the superzoom for conveinience, but I can't see keeping 2 telezooms of such similar length.

I totally agree. But if you think you could live without 1 or 2 of the overlaps you could (sell them, and) probably do a lot more with a good prime.

gasrocks wrote in post #8416860
But if you like them all for different reasons then they are different - definition = no overlap.

Very true !

I think you may be happier picking 1 or 2 lenses from what you have and trading them out for something with more versatility. Now sure what the lenses are worth in your country, but in the US:

18-55 IS $100
55-250 IS $200
18-200 IS $475
75-300 $100

That's $875 tied up in 4 of essentially the same lenses. I'd probably pick either the 18-55/55-250 combo or the 18-200 and sell the rest to fund another lens that will do something different. Like a faster prime, or a macro lens, or flash.

I can see the value in keeping 3 of them, but not all 4. If the 70-300 is the 70-300IS, then I think you'd be better off keeping that and selling the 55-250. If it is indeed the 75-300, then get rid of it and keep the 55-200. Having overlapping FL's isn't necessarily a bad idea, and I can see where you'd want the 18-200 for a walkaround when you are only taking 1 lens, whereas the 18-55 and 55-200 have better image quality in their ranges. To really see a jump in capability, I would recomnmend selling at least one of your lenses and getting a good solid prime like the 85/1.8 - it will be able to do things that your slow zooms can't: shoot action in low light and get really narrow depth of field.

It isn't weird by the way, it has recently been given a diagnosis: GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). If you actually shoot with your gear it is OK, but if you are only a collector there are better hobbies.

If you notice my signature I have some overlap, and that is intentional. I prefer to shoot my 2 L's, but there are times when I need the capabilities of the 28-135 or 17-35. The 17-35 only ever gets used at 17mm when I need an ultrawide shot, and the 28-135 is my light travel lens. The 28-135 also serves the purpose of getting more depth of field with static subjects in low light, such as at a museum.

Rendition wrote in post #8416789
You're just weird, I don't see how you can find the opportunity to mount your 18-55 when you already have 18-200.... and like wise 55-250 or 70-300 (you mean 75-300?) when you already have 55-250 or 75-300, not only are they overlapping, they're actually of the similar focal lengths.

If I were you, I simply have to pick the one which I think has been producing the best pictures and in this instance, I reckon 55-250 wins (plus the IS). I say, sell off 18-55 and 75-300 and get yourself a prime or uwa.

Yep I'm a weird for sure and yes I did mean the 75-300... just a typo... I have found that my 18-200 gives a different look than my 18-55... more of a rounded look to the corners. anyone else noticed this?

I'm sorry I didn't finish... the 18-200 gives that look at 18mm only... sorry

That's called distortion, and is typically considered a bad thing... You could PP your image to have that artificial look and get rid of one of the lenses :P.

wow, 4.5%, that's big...

http://www.photozone.d​e …anon_18200_3556​is?start=1

I am consodering trying to sell most of them. I am lusting after the 24-70L... a friend of mine has one and I really like it.

IVIax wrote in post #8418543
That's called distortion, and is typically considered a bad thing... You could PP your image to have that artificial look and get rid of one of the lenses :P.

told you I was weird.

focus.pocus wrote in post #8419041
I am consodering trying to sell most of them. I am lusting after the 24-70L... a friend of mine has one and I really like it.

I bought that lens a week ago, and I love it (even though I heard people saying they don't have enough zoom range on a crop body). Keep in mind that it's heavy...