18-200mm f3.5-5.6 or 17-55mm f/2.8

[mrpaddlepop]

Hi all,

the forum is so helpful but ive got a dillema and need to buy a lense before the end of the week as i want to use it for a couple of family weddings im going to

I have a canon 450d im still in auto mode but still learning!! I mainly take portrait pictures of people and yummy food!

Ive heard a lot about the f2.8 and how amazing it is, looking at the forums prices its not a lot extra compared to the new 18-200 which i have heard is a good all in 1. I dont want to carry 2 lenses everywhere i go.

Can someone help in giving advice on which one to go for please:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM : MS $1,230 (b4 7%)/ $1,190 (b4 7%) (not too sure what this b4 7% means?)
EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS RP JO $980 / MS $999 (w GST)

[Octarine]

From what I have heard and read the 18-200 has some noticeable distortions in the short range, especially for subjects very close. Which means that your group shoots will suffer. All-in-One lenses have their disadvantages. The advantage of the SLR concept is to have the right lens for the right purpose. A wedding calls for shorter focal length, unless you want to take portraits of people at the other end of the room like a paparazzi. Secondly, indoor the light might be limited, so f/2.8 comes in very handy.
If you have the money then go for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. (Btw: "b4 7%" means "before applying the GST rate of 7%" which will add some money to the total price. Some shops can't resist this silly way of quoting.) The IS could also help you for close-up shoots of food if you don't have a tripod.
For the long end (above 55mm) you better look for a dedicated lens like the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.
You can also consider renting a lens if you want to have a trial period to see if the lens is worth the money for you.

[Headshotzx]

17-55IS- once you learn more, you will appreciate it. The more serious you get, the less of the "i don't want to bring two lenses" mentality you will have.

[mrpaddlepop]

I heard that the 18-200 was more of a budget option. I find it quite hard as to which one to purchase, i already have the standard 17-55mm but does anyone have any feedback on the 18-200?

[doodah]

Originally Posted by mrpaddlepop I heard that the 18-200 was more of a budget option. I find it quite hard as to which one to purchase, i already have the standard 17-55mm but does anyone have any feedback on the 18-200?

I recommend the 55-250 IS + 18-55 IS combo rather than the 18-200 IS.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a little luxury thing when you are more comfortable with the lenses.

[ahbian]

Originally Posted by mrpaddlepop I heard that the 18-200 was more of a budget option. I find it quite hard as to which one to purchase, i already have the standard 17-55mm but does anyone have any feedback on the 18-200?

You mean the standard 18-55? Because (to me) the 17-55 is not a really "standard" kit lens. I would always recommend it to any one who needs a lens within that range. The IQ is really quite good.

[mrpaddlepop]

sorry i meant the standard cheapo lens think its like the 18-55mm (comes free with the 450d)

[m3lv1nh0]

For yummy food and some candid shots for weddings, you can get the 501.8. Cheap and light. The bokeh will beat the f2.8 for food photography and in low light, f1.8 would fair better too. Of course it's not a zoom but learn to zoom with your feet.

[calebk]

The 18-200 and 17-55 are quite different breeds of lenses. The 18-200 is more of a versatile, jack of all trades kind of lens, being able to cover most common used focal lengths an average user would utilise.

The 17-55, on the other hand, is a specialised lens. Large, constant aperture, with a standard walkabout range, of medium wide angle to medium telephoto (after the crop factor is taken into consideration).

[MarkTan89]

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is the one to go for if you're a frequent low-light shooter. The 18-200mm IS on the other hand is unrivalled in its versatility especially when travelling overseas and you do not wish to suffer the bulk of too many lenses. So gotta ask yourself, which you need more.

[therat]

What is low-light?
on what condition is consider low-light?

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by therat What is low-light? on what condition is consider low-light?

When an f/4 lens gives you 1/30 or slower at ISO800, ie late evenings, restaurants, function rooms, concerts etc etc. That's when f/2.8 can help or save you.

Extremely low light is when you find it hard to see cos of the lack of light (and not cos of eye problem), ie late at night, dark room etc. You will need an aperture bigger than f/2.8 for this- something like f/1.4 would be ideal.

[therat]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx When an f/4 lens gives you 1/30 or slower at ISO800, ie late evenings, restaurants, function rooms, concerts etc etc. That's when f/2.8 can help or save you. Extremely low light is when you find it hard to see cos of the lack of light (and not cos of eye problem), ie late at night, dark room etc. You will need an aperture bigger than f/2.8 for this- something like f/1.4 would be ideal.

If take pic during late evening, with build in flash and f2.8
is it enough?

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by therat If take pic during late evening, with build in flash and f2.8 is it enough?

How late is late? :S

With f/2.8 I usually only manage to get 1/30 ISO800 after 7pm, and the shutterspeed decreases very rapidly.

That's why I shoot primes at night when I'm out-- f/2.8 zooms just can't cope.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx How late is late? :S With f/2.8 I usually only manage to get 1/30 ISO800 after 7pm, and the shutterspeed decreases very rapidly. That's why I shoot primes at night when I'm out-- f/2.8 zooms just can't cope.

Agreed. Most of the time to travel light, the f/2.8 zooms will not cut it, and they are a little weighty anyway. A fast prime is invaluable. When I'm hanging out with friends, all I bring out is usually a 35mm f/2, as it is small and not so intimidating. Of course, that also translates to a short, compact lens lens that is easier to stuff into almost any bag, as long as you have an insert.

But that's all besides the point; we're not considering fast primes at the moment; a zoom is what TS is looking for.

[therat]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx How late is late? :S With f/2.8 I usually only manage to get 1/30 ISO800 after 7pm, and the shutterspeed decreases very rapidly. That's why I shoot primes at night when I'm out-- f/2.8 zooms just can't cope.

like 9pm?

will 17-85mm better at night compare to 17-55mm?

[ssaloon]

17-55 will beat 17-85 because of a bigger aperture (2.8)

[calebk]

Originally Posted by therat like 9pm? will 17-85mm better at night compare to 17-55mm?

You need to go back to your fundamentals of understanding a lens' uses and advantages, how maximum aperture ties in with exposure, and how that in turn, decides how useful a lens is in low light.

[silvr]

Originally Posted by therat like 9pm? will 17-85mm better at night compare to 17-55mm?

the range of focal length of the lens has no effect on whether the lens is "better" for a 9pm shoot or not. you need to look at aperture and your ambient lighting conditions.

Shooting an F1 race at 9pm and some taxis along lim chu kang at 9pm a lot of diff.

[WATCHMYPHOTO]

I choose 17-55 mm f/2.8!