opinion, 2 seperate lenses or 1?

[tommo123]

i've joined the slr club last year with a 550d (t2i i think in the US) and it came with an 18-55 lens. i also bought a 55-250mm canon lens along side it. in the last week i've bought a tamron 18-270 lens.

a friend was saying it won't be as good as the near or far end as a canon but my argument is that a slightly lower qual pic is better than missing an opportunity does to having to swap lenses.

i'm not a perfectionist so my plan is to use the tamron for general use and swap to the stock 18-55mm canon lens for shots where i know for sure i'm not gonna need the extra zoom.

i know in the end that it's all subjective, but does anyone have any opinions? i'm still a newbie btw

 

[Silenus]

Well this has been the question many photogs go through with lens selection. Really only you can be the judge of what is better for you. I went through this with Nikon. I had an 18-55 + 55-200 VR to start with. Then I sold them and got an 18-200 VR superzoom. Then I decided I wanted something a bit better while at the same time realizing I wanted something a bit wider while not needing the long end as much as I though...which lead me finally to the 16-85VR lens I have now. I find that FOR ME it's is the perfect compromise of build quality, image quality, and range (5x zoom is still a lot of focal length range compared to the 18-55, and the extra 2mm on the wide end is quite noticeable). Combined that lens with my 35mm f/1.8 prime and the two make an extremely versatile but still small and light combo.

So...yes you will certainly lose some quality going to the 18-270. But if the huge range and convenience of one lens is better for you than great!

If I were you I probably wouldn't bother keeping the 18-55...but it will be better quality in it's range than the 18-270 in the same range. It will also be significantly smaller and lighter than the 18-270 and might be nice for times you want to go with a very light kit.

 

[tommo123]

it's smaller, but overall (attached to the camera) i don't notice the weight diff.

i will sell the 55-250 lens and keep the stock. if i do ever sell this camera, odds are the buyer will want the stock lens with it.

 

[Railgun]

For general photog, I`ve been looking for a "good," versitle zoom. I`ve currently got a [all Nikon] 24-120 f3.5-5.6, 50 f1.2, and 16-35 f4. I`ve wanted the 70-200 for a while, but being such a huge lens...and being FX, I`d rather have something longer.

I was looking at the 28-300 f3.5, but without trying it myself, I`m on the fence based on the reviews being all over the place. Better than the 24-120 which I hate, but I`m not going to get it just because it`s got a wider range.

That said, I`m of the mindset that you`ll have a lens for what you`re trying to shoot. IE, I`m probably not going to need the wide if I`m at a track shooting something coming down a straight and I`m not going to need a tele if I`m shooting some architecture or portraits. The 50 I carry everywhere though. It`s small, but fantastic. You just need to get used to you becoming the zoom ring as oppposed to the lens and don`t think that a fixed will limit your photos.

If I`m doing something general, say, walking around London sight seeing or something, I would want that single lens to prevent those missed opportunities, but just because you have several lenses doesn`t mean you have to carry them all the time. That just becomes cumbersome. If I want something special, I`ll flip to a better lens (assuming my tripod is with) and get a better shot.

As Silenus mentioned, only you can be the judge. Whatever you want to do and whatever your budget is will dictate what you end up with.

 

[twistedlogic]

Well this has been the question many photogs go through with lens selection. Really only you can be the judge of what is better for you. I went through this with Nikon. I had an 18-55 + 55-200 VR to start with. Then I sold them and got an 18-200 VR superzoom. Then I decided I wanted something a bit better while at the same time realizing I wanted something a bit wider while not needing the long end as much as I though...

^^^^^ This

I went thru this very thought process, minus actually buying the 18-200. I found that I prefer a fixed aperture lens so I have full control over aperture instead of not knowing because it changes with focal length as you zoom.

I believe this final paragraph from DPReview sums it up nicely:

"Those seeking the ultimate in technical image quality will need to look elsewhere, but as an overall package it's likely as good as any other DSLR superzoom out there. So for users looking for the convenience of such a lens, it's a perfectly good choice."

 

[radhak]

...
i'm not a perfectionist
...
my argument is that a slightly lower qual pic is better than missing an opportunity does to having to swap lenses.

/thread

you already found what you want; others don't count.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I have a thread that is going regardign a similar dilema.

I have the 18-55 and 55-250 just like you.

One regret is that I don't like sqapping from the 18-55 just to get a 80mm setting. I think overlap in zooms is a good idea. The prime example of this is when my son was playing soccer. I am now thinking that the 18-125 and 55-250 combo is a good way to go at a low cost.

I did consider that Tamron you got though. Still considering it. But I'd keep the 18-55 for when I know that I want it.

Ideally, I'd get the 15-85 and the 55-250 but I can't afford that darned thing (15-85).

 

[tommo123]

wow! just googled that lens. expensive!

 

[twistedlogic]

/thread

you already found what you want; others don't count.

+1

Isn't that how most threads are with "should I buy this"? They just want to hear, "go for it".

 

[CptObvious]

YMMV, but I can count on one hand the number of times I was shooting wide shots and missed a long telephoto shot (or vice versa) because I couldn't change lenses in time. I might possibly buy an 1X-85/105/135 lens if the price is right, but I don't see the point in paying a lot more for a superzoom (200mm or higher). The 18-55/55-250 is a quality duo and you can't beat them without paying many times more.

Personally I'd return the Tamron and buy a prime or UWA, but that's just my opinion.

 

[tommo123]

+1

Isn't that how most threads are with "should I buy this"? They just want to hear, "go for it".

i already went for it before starting the thread

just wanted some reassurance lol

 

[tommo123]

YMMV, but I can count on one hand the number of times I was shooting wide shots and missed a long telephoto shot (or vice versa) because I couldn't change lenses in time. I might possibly buy an 1X-85/105/135 lens if the price is right, but I don't see the point in paying a lot more for a superzoom (200mm or higher). The 18-55/55-250 is a quality duo and you can't beat them without paying many times more.

Personally I'd return the Tamron and buy a prime or UWA, but that's just my opinion.

i've thought about it a few times over the last year and in spite of a friend (really into this stuff) egging me on and singing the virtues of a prime - i am more into the taking of the photos themselves and not so much the technicalities of it.

i started off (digital i mean) with a p+c kodak. 4mp x3 opt. the only thing at the time i didn't like was the limited zoom. in the last 3 or so years i've gone from a sony hc3 HD camera, finepix to a lumix and now to an canon dslr. the body of the cam and the performance in poor light is far better and gives me more choice in lenses :awe:

last year was decision time. dslr (nikon/canon) or a superzoom. i had a chance to try a friends slr and it made my mind up for me. to be honest, the 18-55 18-270mm combo will probably do me for a good few years now tbh.

i don't do any photoshopping, just some photomatix and compositing

 

[Lemon law]

In my mind the question and the answer is rather simple especially in digital.

The fact is and remains, any zoom lens, especially with a high zoom factor like an 18-200 with an 11.1 X zoom factor will always be optically inferior to a prime lens at the focal length you happen to select.

If your holy grail is to display the resulting photograph in a 16x20 print size, the zoom lens user is likely to be disappointed, but if you select 3x5 or 5x7 print size, one is unlikely to be able to tell the difference.

 

[tommo123]

i dont really print - the parental units do though. they like some of my pics. i view them on my TV or PC monitors