Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

  1. #1

    Default 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Hi guys,

    Im rather new in photography been shooting around for a mth plus to 2. ive done research and read other threads and realised ive got the need for both lens. need advice from u guys here on which lens will be a better one to get first as i do not want to buy both at same time. i shoot alot on landscape and streets which 18 - 200 is the better choice but i shoot alot on low light too which 17 - 55 f2.8 is recommended.

    im a 600D canon user.

  2. #2
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by AreSs View Post
    Hi guys,

    Im rather new in photography been shooting around for a mth plus to 2. ive done research and read other threads and realised ive got the need for both lens. need advice from u guys here on which lens will be a better one to get first as i do not want to buy both at same time. i shoot alot on landscape and streets which 18 - 200 is the better choice but i shoot alot on low light too which 17 - 55 f2.8 is recommended.

    im a 600D canon user.
    No. 17-55 f2.8 will cover what you have said... landscape, streets and in low light (indoors, bad lighting, etc). Unless you want to have the reach of a short tele lens, then you might need a 18-200mm... even then I would recommend the 55-250mm or a 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 (if you can afford that). So all in all, you might want to get a 17-55mm (for day to day usage) and a short tele-zoom which was 55-250mm for the extra reach if needs be.

  3. #3

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    17-55mm is a much better lens in term of IQ

  4. #4

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino123 View Post
    No. 17-55 f2.8 will cover what you have said... landscape, streets and in low light (indoors, bad lighting, etc). Unless you want to have the reach of a short tele lens, then you might need a 18-200mm... even then I would recommend the 55-250mm or a 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 (if you can afford that). So all in all, you might want to get a 17-55mm (for day to day usage) and a short tele-zoom which was 55-250mm for the extra reach if needs be.
    Hi thanks alot for the advice will keep in mind for that.

  5. #5

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by small pig View Post
    17-55mm is a much better lens in term of IQ
    sry but pardon me. IQ? what does that mean? the USM motor thingy?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Singapore (West)
    Posts
    690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AreSs

    sry but pardon me. IQ? what does that mean? the USM motor thingy?
    IQ = image quality..
    Canon 550D | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6IS | EF 50mm f/1.8II |
    My Humble Flickr

  7. #7
    Member Clarenze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AreSs

    sry but pardon me. IQ? what does that mean? the USM motor thingy?
    IQ = Image Quality

    I advise that if you want to buy a lens get the 17-55. It's awesome for portrait, wide enough for landscape, and definitely fast enough for relatively low light situations. 18-200 is similar to your kit lens just longer reach.
    Nikon D800 | N14-24mm | N50mm | GoPro HERO 3 | Clarenze Photography

  8. #8
    Member crystal1993's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan, Tokyo
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    IQ = Image Quality.

    Yes a 17-55 would be better. Unless you are one of those people who don't like changing lens than go ahead and get the 18-200.

    Both lens serve very different purposes.

    17-55 f/2.8 naturally better in low light and image quality.

    18-200 f/3.5-5.6 is considered the all rounder lens but in exchange for the versatility in range, you lose image quality.

  9. #9

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Thanks alot for the info guys think i know what to get first already, but i wonder if tamron 17-50 is good? or should i just get the canon which cost 500 or even more?

  10. #10

    Default

    Try to rent both to see the difference. I prefer the canon.

  11. #11
    Member crystal1993's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan, Tokyo
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Bad thing about tamron is that the non-vc(which is their IS) version is better than the one that has vc.
    So depends on you already. If you don't mind without IS than go ahead and get the tamron one. If not canon would be a better choice.

  12. #12
    Senior Member luckyorange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    2,843
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    bro, good luck on ur purchase =D...
    Lousy de My Flickr

  13. #13

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    I bought a 17-55 after 3 mths of using my kit lens 18-200...till now..it is always the lens attached to my camera.

  14. #14
    Member billheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore,
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crystal1993
    Bad thing about tamron is that the non-vc(which is their IS) version is better than the one that has vc.
    So depends on you already. If you don't mind without IS than go ahead and get the tamron one. If not canon would be a better choice.
    Sorry for the OT. Why is the vc version lousier then the non-vc one? Is it because of focusing issues?
    Photographer/Foodie/Cat lover
    Flickr

  15. #15
    Member crystal1993's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan, Tokyo
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by billheng View Post
    Sorry for the OT. Why is the vc version lousier then the non-vc one? Is it because of focusing issues?
    If you went to google "tamron 17-50 vc vs non vc" you will get your answer.

    Just to save you from the trouble, non-vc is sharper than the vc version and also the vc version is more prone to contact errors.
    A lot of reviewers are complaining about soft copies of the vc version too. Could be because of the extra element added in the vc version for stabilization purposes.
    At their widest angle of 17mm, both lenses performed fairly similar. However, itís a different story at 50mm where the non-VC version easily outperforms the more expensive VC version.

  16. #16

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    17-55 is a good focal length for landscapes and environmental portraits and general shots. Its almost the equivalent of a 24-70 on a full frame cam.

    18-200 is an all in one zoom. Good if you want to use wide angle to telephoto, but don't want to change lens.

    But 17-55 is better in terms of image quality and it has f/2.8

  17. #17
    Member Radiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    239

    Default

    I assume you have the 18-55 mm IS ? would recommend 55-250mm instead. No need to upgrade if you are not ready. These 2 lens can serve very good pictures for your camera. I would recomend you spending on other stuff like flash and tripod instead. These stuff add up to quite a lot too.
    Canon User

  18. #18
    Member tznyein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    159

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    yeap back on "Radiant" idea on lens. If budget is matter, i will go with 55-250 and 10-22. or really low light then 50 f1.8 lens.
    For landscape you dont need f2.8 and 17-55 not enough for street photography. anyway that's my personal experience.
    5DMK3+BG-E11 |Sigma 15mm F2.8 FishEye|35mm F1.4ART|17-40 F4L|70-200 F2.8 L|Alienbees B800+580exII

  19. #19

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Seems like you might be infected by BBB virus, thinking of buying through forum threads instead of being sure what you need. It depends on your shooting style..both lenses are designed with different purposes in mind. Do you like to change lenses? Or do u need a versatile lens that allows u to shoot 'sudden' pics that you come across suddenly? Which is more impt? IQ or versatility? I am a happy user of. 18 - 200 because to me missing a chance to frame well to shoot because my focal length is not enough is worsw than not having rack sharp photo.

    Off track.. Wide angle stick to ur kit lens now...if i am you i will consider 70 - 200 f2.8 non is 2nd hand if i have the budgey for 17-55

  20. #20
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,210

    Default Re: 17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by gundamseed84 View Post
    I am a happy user of. 18 - 200 because to me missing a chance to frame well to shoot because my focal length is not enough is worsw than not having rack sharp photo.
    Agreed.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •