My first DSLR...


Dec 9, 2010
47
0
0
38
#1
Hi everybody, I am planning to get my 1st dslr. I have decided to get a Canon EOS 7D. I am planning to match it with Canon EFS 18-200mm lens. Is that a good choice? I would taking pictures of my kids and holidays. I want to minimize changing lens. I am hoping for opinions from u guys. Thanks!
 

jed091270

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2009
907
0
16
47
Bishan
#3
Its a good choice but really depends on what you want to shoot!
 

Dec 9, 2010
47
0
0
38
#4
I want to have an all-rounder lens where I can take pictures without having to change lens. My main subjects will be my two toddlers who run around all the time. At the same time, there's a side of me who wants to explore photography. But until I gained more experience n know what other lenses I need, 18-200 seems good enough. I was even thinking of getting 5D MkII but it seems to be overkill at the moment for a novice.
 

#5
7D's no doubt a good cam but maybe u wld wanna get something more basic to start off with to understand the basics of photography with dslr and oso to affirm ur interest in this field :)

Of course, if u're really loaded, get the 7D haha
 

Mar 1, 2009
321
0
0
Singapore
#6
Why not the 15-85 IS USM that comes along as a kit(If u decide to get the package)??

Since kids move around alot, i believe the USM will help in this case..Unless u need the reach of the 18-200..

My 2c worth
 

neech7

New Member
Dec 17, 2009
1,083
0
0
US
#7
I want to have an all-rounder lens where I can take pictures without having to change lens.
Don't we all?

I want a 8-500mm f/1.0 that weighs less than 500g and costs less than $1000 but it doesn't exist. Bear in mind that lenses with a big focal range like 18-200s entail sacrifices in some way, usually variable aperture and/or poor IQ at certain focal range, probably at the long end.
 

rokieto

New Member
Dec 27, 2005
589
0
0
Planet Jupiter
#8
15-85 will be a good start, wider at the wide-end, longer on the long-end (comparing standard zooms)

it is a good compromise of the longer zoom-range, 18-200 is superzoom, superzooms usually compromise image quality.

With inter-changeable lens option, you will eventually be tempted to have more lens anyway.

most of us would like to have one or 2 lens to switch to, sooner or later, like a 70-300 (at least a 2 lens compo in the bag).

To me, I rather start with 15-85, plus 70-300.

it is better than starting with 18-200, subsequently buy additional lens:
  • another standard zoom (17-50 or 17-85 or 15-85),
  • Ultra wide zooms, (10-22, 12-24 etc)
  • tele-zoom(lighter 70-300, heavier 70-200 F4 or F2.8, etc)
which is alot of duplication in zoom-range (if you already have 18-200, by then, you probably keep the 18-200 for travel or sell it away):dunno:
 

Last edited:

Atarandas

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2008
2,134
1
0
#9
Yes.18-200mm is good for most of what you want to shoot .
 

Dec 9, 2010
47
0
0
38
#10
Wow, thanks guys! Your replies have certainly set my mind thinking. Maybe what I should do is to go down n test out the lenses. Maybe with the kit lens and the 70-300 n compare it to the 18-200.
 

Dec 9, 2010
47
0
0
38
#11
Good advice bro. But since the 7D will be my first dslr, I am already outlaying quite a sum of money for a new hobby. But knowing myself that if I start off with a more basic body, I will want to upgrade soon. Changing lens is easier for me than changing lenses as my missus does keep a lookout on my expenditure. I actually considered the Nikon D7000 but once I held both cameras n tried them out. I realized that the 7D is still better than the D7000.
 

Dec 9, 2010
47
0
0
38
#12
I might add a prime lens for portrait shots as well.
 

tecnica

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2004
3,660
10
0
#13
truth is, the 7D needs good glass in order to perform at its best.

18-200 will bring you convenience of not changing lenses but that defeats the whole purpose of having a DSLR, isnt it?

instead of shelling out that amount of moolah for the 18-200, may i suggest you pick up the 15-85 instead?

the 18-85 is quite sharp and with the USM motor, it can focus swiftly too.
 

Dec 9, 2010
47
0
0
38
#14
truth is, the 7D needs good glass in order to perform at its best.

18-200 will bring you convenience of not changing lenses but that defeats the whole purpose of having a DSLR, isnt it?

instead of shelling out that amount of moolah for the 18-200, may i suggest you pick up the 15-85 instead?

the 18-85 is quite sharp and with the USM motor, it can focus swiftly too.
I might consider getting the 15-85 later when I mustered the 7D. At this point of time, there's so much for me to learn. Changing lenses is quite a hustle for me now. That's y i got the 18-200mm for my walkabout n the 50mm F1.8 for home use. Definitely aim to get a L lens in the future, but now "training" with the 18-200mm. Hope to learn more from the experts in the forum.
 

Mar 1, 2009
321
0
0
Singapore
#15
Well, if you ask me..I would rather get the 15-85 over the 18-200 anytime and start off from here.

When i went Penang last year with a 500D + a 18-200, I dont even use from 100mm range onwards at almost 90% of the pictures taken...
 

Last edited:

Etna-sama

New Member
Aug 18, 2010
116
0
0
#16
Hi everybody, I am planning to get my 1st dslr. I have decided to get a Canon EOS 7D. I am planning to match it with Canon EFS 18-200mm lens. Is that a good choice? I would taking pictures of my kids and holidays. I want to minimize changing lens. I am hoping for opinions from u guys. Thanks!
You are probably better off with a prosumer superzoom camera with 20x zoom (28-500+) from the likes of Panny, Olympus, Canon, Nikon or Fuji.

The whole point of getting a DSLR is to have specific lenses to match specific needs.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,944
88
48
#17
IMHO, a 18-200mm has convenience of not needing to change lens as the only advantage.

You mentioned 2 key areas of photography that something else is probably better :
1. Kids - indoors, you'd be better off with a faster lens to keep shutter speed up. You'd not need too much focal length to shoot these in most cases anyway. Unless you often shoot people shots from 8-10m away :)

2. Landscape/Tour - The big, long lens hanging on the neck as you walk around is a pain. You won't need all the focal length at once anyway. Typically 18mm (wider if possible) to 135mm will suffice, with the 135mm end being least used.
The super zoom is also not as well controlled for absolute sharpness and distortion.



You won't be utilizing the potential of a camera like a 7D.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#18
i think 18-55 and 55-250 is a more appealing combination.

Lighter in the hands. Lighter on the wallet :)
Less compromise in terms of optical performance.
If 18-55 is not so enticing, maybe can consider 17-50/2.8 as a (more expensive) substitute :)
 

tecnica

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2004
3,660
10
0
#19
i went to China earlier this Feb for holidays. brought my 85/f1.8, 17-55 + my 7D, the latter stayed on my camera throughout the trip.

frankly speaking i shot more shots on 17mm than on 55mm. sometimes i wish i could go wider but oh well.
 

Tsufy

New Member
Dec 13, 2010
16
0
0
#20
Don't we all?

I want a 8-500mm f/1.0 that weighs less than 500g and costs less than $1000 but it doesn't exist. Bear in mind that lenses with a big focal range like 18-200s entail sacrifices in some way, usually variable aperture and/or poor IQ at certain focal range, probably at the long end.

Yes, I actually prefer lenses with lower apertures (f2.8) to those with larger range. You can vary the depth of field more & hence have a greater avenue to express your creativity.
 

Top Bottom