Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

  1. #1

    Default 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    hi, would like to know what is the difference buying 18-200mm lenses vs having 2 lenses at 18-55mm and 55-200mm? i'm a newbie, only downside i can think of, is having to change lenses which can sometimes be a hassle.

    also, what does IS USM lens, II USM lens or L IS USM lens etc mean? found definition of USM here http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=USM but not sure what the IS or II etc mean?

    i found a online deal for EOS 400D + 18-55mm + 55-200mm kit at around $1,465 and EOS 400D + 18-55mm kit at around $1,279. have checked canon sub-forum here seems like the deal with the 18-55 and 55-200 is a fairly good deal comparing with sg prices? worthwhile to get the 2 lenses or just settle for the 18-55 first?

    and is the d40 really not worth buying? was considering buying the d40 or 400d but from reading online, seems like 400d is "better".

    thanks all!
    Last edited by noelle; 27th September 2007 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Singapore (SengKang)
    Posts
    2,789

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    hi, would like to know what is the difference buying 18-200mm lenses vs having 2 lenses at 18-55mm and 55-200mm? i'm a newbie, only downside i can think of, is having to change lenses which can sometimes be a hassle.

    also, what does IS USM lens, II USM lens or L IS USM lens etc mean? found definition of USM here http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=USM but not sure what the IS or II etc mean?

    i found a online deal for EOS 400D + 18-55mm + 55-200mm kit at around $1,465 and EOS 400D + 18-55mm kit at around $1,279. have checked canon sub-forum here seems like the deal with the 18-55 and 55-200 is a fairly good deal comparing with sg prices? worthwhile to get the 2 lenses or just settle for the 18-55 first?

    and is the d40 really not worth buying? was considering buying the d40 or 400d but from reading online, seems like 400d is "better".

    thanks all!
    For canon, I don't think there is 18-200 lens unless you are looking for third party lens.
    Yes the 18-200 is more versatile as what you said, do not have to change lens.
    IS stands for Image Stabiliser and applies for Canon lens, for Nikon, it is VR = Vibration Reduction.
    II just mean the 2nd version of the lens.. II = 2.
    -Express yourself not in words-
    http://www.majere2sg.com

  3. #3

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    and is the d40 really not worth buying? was considering buying the d40 or 400d but from reading online, seems like 400d is "better".
    Whether or not the D40 is worth buying over other models depend on your shooting requirements. The D40 has a simplified feature set, but comes with everything else that makes beautiful photos with minimal fuss - 3D matrix II metering, iTTL flash (high class P&S ). It does come with a manual mode, though, so you could probably do almost everything a better featured dSLR could do. It lacks AEB and depth of view preview though.

    And whether having a 18-200mm lens vs 2 other lenses that cover the same focal range boils down to convenience. More lenses mean heavier loads, and changing lenses when you're out and about risks missing a shot or getting dust onto your sensor.

    The argument used to be that 18-200 lenses (so called "superzooms") has visible optical compromises when compared to other lenses of more modest focal lengths. That may be true previously, but I do believe lens technology has progressed tremendously since. I have the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens, and it's a crackling lens!

    Unless you're printing giant prints, I do believe you're not going to be able to discern photos taken with primes, super zooms or normal zooms. Well, most normal folks won't be able to anyway

  4. #4

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Hi,
    I used to use 18 -50mm and 70 - 300mm for my nikon. But after buying the 18-200mm VR. No turning back.

    1.) No need change lens, minimized dust on lens and sensor
    2.) Good travel lens. Only 1 lens to carry but i still holding my old 18 -50mm for travelling just in case.

    But of course, 18 -200mm is a general purpose high quality len. Colour and image are pretty sharp to me.

  5. #5

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    hi, would like to know what is the difference buying 18-200mm lenses vs having 2 lenses at 18-55mm and 55-200mm? i'm a newbie, only downside i can think of, is having to change lenses which can sometimes be a hassle.

    also, what does IS USM lens, II USM lens or L IS USM lens etc mean? found definition of USM here http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=USM but not sure what the IS or II etc mean?

    i found a online deal for EOS 400D + 18-55mm + 55-200mm kit at around $1,465 and EOS 400D + 18-55mm kit at around $1,279. have checked canon sub-forum here seems like the deal with the 18-55 and 55-200 is a fairly good deal comparing with sg prices? worthwhile to get the 2 lenses or just settle for the 18-55 first?

    and is the d40 really not worth buying? was considering buying the d40 or 400d but from reading online, seems like 400d is "better".

    thanks all!
    The deal for the 400D with the 18-55 kit lens is abit steep. You should be able to get better pricing from the streets. I am heading down to MS tonight to get a set. Definitely cheaper than the price you were quoted. Perhaps you should drop a few e-quotes request to the shops.

    The other kit sounds really attractive but only if you know you will be using the 55-200 often. I think the 18-55 will keep you busy enough till you know what aspect you want to go in detail. Maybe after using, you decide to go in macro. Then the 55-200 collect dust liao.

  6. #6

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    thanks.. glad i asked here will probably give buying the 2 lenses a miss.

    just curious, any reason why canon doesn't make 18-200mm lenses?

  7. #7

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    good qns. if i am the ceo then maybe can answer u.

    maybe it wasn't their direction to do 18-200 like the other brands.

  8. #8

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    ahhh i see

  9. #9

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    ahhh i see
    i went to ms last night with my colleague and she bought the 400D @ $1190 inclusive of GST. Comes with the canon bag and tokina filter. Do try to make them give you more freebies like lcd protector or something.

  10. #10

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    thanks for the info! prices are indeed cheaper in sg but i'm living overseas at the moment so i will buy locally for now. which is around $1255 for 400d + 18-55mm.

  11. #11

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    oic. whereabouts are you now?

  12. #12

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    -deleted-
    Last edited by noelle; 14th November 2007 at 06:24 AM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    auckland, nz
    oic. tat's far! i guess u shld consider the twin lens kit?

  14. #14
    Senior Member xunjas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapura
    Posts
    6,490

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    thanks for the info! prices are indeed cheaper in sg but i'm living overseas at the moment so i will buy locally for now. which is around $1255 for 400d + 18-55mm.
    maybe get the 40D, better specs and save on upgrading=)

  15. #15

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    boredphuck, the twin lens is tempting and even more so now. just got told that canon is offering $100 cashback for 400d body and lens in october but think it is quite a pain carrying two lens, changing lens and fear of dust... keen to get the tamron 18-200mm but will have to fork out $380 more as opposed to getting the twin lens.

    xunjas, 40d would set me back about 2k just for the body - too pricey for me and also i'm a newbie. afraid 40d might overwhelm me.


    any comments for the following lens for 400d?
    Canon EOS 400D with 17-85mm IS USM Lens - $1770 (inclusive of $100 cashback)
    Canon EOS 400D with 18-55mm lens & 90-300mm non USM lens Kit - $1549 (inclusive of $100 cashback)

    any reason why the 17-85mm is so expensive?

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    boredphuck, the twin lens is tempting and even more so now. just got told that canon is offering $100 cashback for 400d body and lens in october but think it is quite a pain carrying two lens, changing lens and fear of dust... keen to get the tamron 18-200mm but will have to fork out $380 more as opposed to getting the twin lens.

    xunjas, 40d would set me back about 2k just for the body - too pricey for me and also i'm a newbie. afraid 40d might overwhelm me.


    any comments for the following lens for 400d?
    Canon EOS 400D with 17-85mm IS USM Lens - $1770 (inclusive of $100 cashback)
    Canon EOS 400D with 18-55mm lens & 90-300mm non USM lens Kit - $1549 (inclusive of $100 cashback)

    any reason why the 17-85mm is so expensive?
    IS + USM

  17. #17

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by noelle View Post
    boredphuck, the twin lens is tempting and even more so now. just got told that canon is offering $100 cashback for 400d body and lens in october but think it is quite a pain carrying two lens, changing lens and fear of dust... keen to get the tamron 18-200mm but will have to fork out $380 more as opposed to getting the twin lens.

    xunjas, 40d would set me back about 2k just for the body - too pricey for me and also i'm a newbie. afraid 40d might overwhelm me.


    any comments for the following lens for 400d?
    Canon EOS 400D with 17-85mm IS USM Lens - $1770 (inclusive of $100 cashback)
    Canon EOS 400D with 18-55mm lens & 90-300mm non USM lens Kit - $1549 (inclusive of $100 cashback)

    any reason why the 17-85mm is so expensive?
    I would go for the 1st kit if i'm u. The 17-85mm can probably let you play around for a long time. With the 2nd kit, both lens aren't that good and you have a gap between 55 to 90 to deal with. what abt getting just the body and the sigma 18-200?

  18. #18

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    My recommendations -

    Canon EOS 400D with 17-85mm IS USM Lens - $1770

    or

    Nikon D40 with 18-200mm VR - Approx $2200

    IS means "image stabilizer" while VR means "vibration reduction" It will reduce the chances of handshake blur in your photos. Lenses with image stabilizing are more expensive as they work wonders.

  19. #19
    Senior Member xunjas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapura
    Posts
    6,490

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by boredphuck View Post
    I would go for the 1st kit if i'm u. The 17-85mm can probably let you play around for a long time. With the 2nd kit, both lens aren't that good and you have a gap between 55 to 90 to deal with. what abt getting just the body and the sigma 18-200?
    17-85mm is a gd choice for beginners, setback is the ef-s, cos cant be used on FF body. =)

  20. #20

    Default Re: 18-200mm vs 18-55mm + 55-200mm

    thanks all, everyone is rooting for the 17-85mm lens, explains the price

    just wondering is the IS only useful for low light conditions? any other situations it could be useful in?

    i probably should have mentioned this earlier actually but i'm quite keen on exploring street photography (taking pics of unsuspecting people from a distant - inspired by some great shots on here), which is why i started off this thread (as per title) considering a superzoom lens like 18-200mm or the the twin lens combo 18-55mm + 55-200mm since i can stand further away from subject and not get whacked . also, on my slr, i have a 35-80mm kit lens which i am quite "bored" with.

    given my shooting "needs", which lens would be most suitable for me? doesn't have to be any of the lens mentioned here and budget using sg prices, $1500 - $1800 including body.

    boredphuck, what's the difference between sigma 18-200mm and tamron 18-200mm? was told sigma has image stabilising..?

    xunjas, what's FF body?
    Last edited by noelle; 30th September 2007 at 07:58 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •