17-55 f2.8 vs 18-200 lens


AreSs

New Member
Mar 31, 2011
29
0
0
#1
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.
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#2
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.
 

AreSs

New Member
Mar 31, 2011
29
0
0
#4
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.
 

Clarenze

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
203
0
0
Singapore
#7
AreSs said:
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.
 

Aug 16, 2010
1,049
0
0
24
Japan, Tokyo
#8
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.
 

AreSs

New Member
Mar 31, 2011
29
0
0
#9
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?
 

Aug 16, 2010
1,049
0
0
24
Japan, Tokyo
#11
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.
 

mrribena

New Member
Dec 7, 2007
10
0
0
#13
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
crystal1993 said:
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?
 

Aug 16, 2010
1,049
0
0
24
Japan, Tokyo
#15
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, it’s a different story at 50mm where the non-VC version easily outperforms the more expensive VC version.
 

Jun 15, 2010
328
1
0
Singapore
miltontan.com
#16
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
 

Radiant

New Member
Oct 19, 2009
239
0
0
Singapore
#17
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.
 

Apr 15, 2010
159
0
16
singapore
#18
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.
 

Dec 12, 2009
1,961
2
0
#19
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
 

Top Bottom