Well, I know that a super zoom lens eg 18 - 200 mm will be as good as 2 separate lenses, but is it worth while to get 2 separate lens? Now I'm currently using s 18-200mm lens with my EOS 500D, and my exp is the image is not always clear, but it is convenient though. Just wondering...
Is it worth to get 2 diff lenses or stick to 1 super zoom lens?
- Thread starter altantic
- Start date
Prime lens is shaper than a zoom lens that contains more lens elements. Zoom lens is sharp at mid-range but not so at the extreme ends. It sucks in more dust and becomes loose (creeping) after some time. It is heavier and requires tripod for most shooting conditions. If you do not wish to switch lenses, then carry two cameras with two lenses, sling each on each side of your shoulder for walkabout shooting.
altantic said:
Clear and sharp is 2 different things. If the image is not that sharp it might be the lens' fault but if it's not "clear" it could be your shooting technique that's lacking.
What are the 2 separate lens are you referring to?
e.g.
1) 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and 55-250 f4-5.6
2) 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8L
The IQ for both sets of these lens are very different...
And what do you mean by "image is not always clear", is it caused by vibrations/handshakes etc (post image for easier troubleshooting....)?
More like option 1. Yup u are right, my hand tends to tremble, so I try to get lens with Image stablization. Of course, I'm learning to adopt right position to hold the camera to reduce my vibrations.
I'm still learning the appropiate holding technique to reduce my vibration. I realize some times what I see on my camera is clear, but when I see closer on my PC, it looks a bit blur. Sighz...
I briefly borrowed the 18-200 frm my cousin as I was considering getting it for holiday and street photography. Im using the same body as you btw.
The tele end at 200 was a tad less sharp than my 55-250 at 200mm. Same settings on a tripod with IS turned off. The difference in sharpness was not very noticeable unless you pixel peep. But in the end, I settled for the 55-250 as it gave me additional reach and was cheaper to compliment my kit lens.
btw, if you are shooting at 200mm, your shutter speed has to be at least 1/200. Bump up the iso if needed.
Maybe you might want to mount it on a tripod and run some tests at home to see if the lens is soft. A soft lens compounded with shakey hands... bad.
If your hand tremble too much....even the best IS on the "best" lens won't help. The general guideline is using shutter speed of 1/(focal length)
If you are using a tripod, make sure you turn off the IS and use either 2sec delay shooting or shutter release remote or the mirror lock up. That should help you get a sharper picture..
Right position to hold: Refer to post #2 here (http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309544)
*Frankly speaking, I was still thinking of getting 18-200 since I currently using Option 1. I like the wide end of the 18-55, but quite troublesome as I have change lens (esp in Windy/Sandy environment) when I need the little bit more of zoom...prob abt 80-100mm*
altantic said:
Technique is very important and also, I know that these do-it-all lenses are not that great on image quality but they should not produce blur images, perhaps just not as sharp. One advice is to try not to pixel peep, if you zoom in all the way on your computer, every decent image will look blur to you, if it looks sharp at the dimensions you need then it's good enough.
Qn not very clear
1) What are the two lens you have in mind? If it is 18-55 + 75 - 300 then forget it. If it is 17 - 55 and 70 - 200L then of course.
2) Do you mind havnig to change lenses frequently?
3) I think you better work on yoru technique first. No techniques + good lenses = poor shoots still.
I am using the same setup and with a bit of pp 18-200 has given me above average pictures (maybe to my low standard).
1) What are the two lens you have in mind? If it is 18-55 + 75 - 300 then forget it. If it is 17 - 55 and 70 - 200L then of course.
2) Do you mind havnig to change lenses frequently?
3) I think you better work on yoru technique first. No techniques + good lenses = poor shoots still.
I am using the same setup and with a bit of pp 18-200 has given me above average pictures (maybe to my low standard).
i was in the same shoe as u once~
with a 18-55 kit and a 55-250 kit lens to bintan. then i did a lens change while in the hotel lobby.
and i gotten myself 1 hair in the view finder and dust on the sensor itself!
and i need to spend money to send the camera for cleaning =(
so i bought a 18-200mm in the end. and save myself from changing lens.
i am really scared of having dust again.
oh ya u can reead up on lens changing techinques, such as pointing the camera to the ground when changing..
but i must say the 18-200 images is not as sharp.
my 2 cents.
with a 18-55 kit and a 55-250 kit lens to bintan. then i did a lens change while in the hotel lobby.
and i gotten myself 1 hair in the view finder and dust on the sensor itself!
and i need to spend money to send the camera for cleaning =(
so i bought a 18-200mm in the end. and save myself from changing lens.
i am really scared of having dust again.
oh ya u can reead up on lens changing techinques, such as pointing the camera to the ground when changing..
but i must say the 18-200 images is not as sharp.
my 2 cents.
but to buy a DSLR and then buy a superzoom lens to "save yourself from changing lenses" seems kinda contradictory...
oh well, to each his own I suppose.
oh well, to each his own I suppose.
I think that question is like asking whether you want convenience or quality. If it's quality you want, separate lenses. Of course budget is important too. The longer zoom you have, the more glass is inside the lens and the smaller your maximum aperture is. I have this, probably unfounded, rule of thumb: quality drops if your zoom is more than 3X. Dunno where I got that from though
....So as you improve in photography and demand better quality images....you'll have to end up with more lenses..
Yah, importantly, switch off your camera when you change lenses. A charged sensor attracts dust like crazy. Anyway, new cameras have the dust removal thingy which works to a certain extend. You should see the old 1Ds...crazy dust magnets. For some reason that was the legendary problem with the 1D. I was a frequent visitor to Canon service center. My 5Ds are Godsend....
Then again I shoot wide open most of the time unless its in the studio.
As you point out, the benefits of a 18-200 or similar megazooms would be that it is convenient.
You might also want to take note that besides possible sacrifices to image quality (I use possible, because it is really hard to tell what you are using as a benchmark here), there are other issues such as distortion control and maximum aperture that come into play. The former might prove to be a problem when it comes to composition - you always have to adjust for correction afterwards; the latter might be an issue when you are limited by low light and don't want to use a higher ISO (because it will introduce noise beyond your acceptable levels).
Is it as good as 2 separate lenses? As mentioned earlier, it depends on what you're comparing it against. Also, which megazoom lens you have. Some megazoom lenses are better than others for sharpness and distortion - this usually comes at a price, though. A rule of thumb is that if you are pitting this against the more "fair" comparison of dual lens kit (e.g. 18-55 + 55-200 that is common to most brands), then you would not be too wrong going with modern day megazooms.
If, however, you are using something else, say - 17-50 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8; then naturally this dual lens set would be relatively superior when it comes to the two issues mentioned above, along with slightly better image quality. This, of course, comes at the cost of price and weight when carrying the set around.
Worthwhile or not, it is your decision to make in view of the presentation of the facts here. Cheers.
Something perhaps worth noting, is that there is still a difference between a DSLR with megazoom lens mounted and the customary prosumer camera with their "36x lens" or whatever it is they are lumped together with these days. This is the sensor size. To my knowledge, other than the ol' Sony R1, there has not been any significant "megazoom" style prosumer (and the R1 wasn't exactly megazoom, with 24-120mm) with a APS-C sized sensor.
The modern day compact-camera examples like Fujifilm X100, Leica X1 and Sigma DP2X employ the use of a fixed lens - so in some sense, there is still some room to buy a DSLR and mount a megazoom lens around it. After all, DSLR prices have softened quite a bit over the years and can even be comparable to most prosumer megazooms today.
Does it maximize the potential of a DSLR? Perhaps not, but that is someone else's money to spend, and is none of my concern.
Last edited:
Similar threads
