SuperZoom lens or a (17-50 & 55-250 combo)?

[Chrisade]

Hi, i'm kind of new to photography and i'm really interested in it

Just like to check whether shld i get a superzoom lens like canon 18-200mm / tamron 18-270mm or shld i get a 17-50 tamron combo with a 55-250mm? ( i checked and realise that both will cost around the same) my budget is around a thousand or lesser.

Thanks alot, i know that superzoom lens will nt be as sharp and IQ as a tamron but it does not need to change lens and can bring out easily for travel.

Any expert can advise me? As in how superzoom lens fared compared to (17-50 tamron combo with a 55-250) and which will be more worthwhile thanks.. coz i afraid of buying and regret. And erm i like to take more pictures on landscape and flowers and stuff more, but will occasionally take potraits too..

 

[Reportage]

sharpness depends if the lens is perfectly callibrated or at least within tolerance as well as the photographer`s skill.

with the tamron you get an F2.8 as well as the 55-250 which is an IS capable zoom. The idea is if one lens got problem got backup.

 

[Chrisade]

yea i know good picture depends on photographer's skills too but lens also play a part. Therefore i'm confuse whether to get one superzoom lens for convenience or get the combo which i believe will have a better quality due to better lens and the F2.8? (i mean)

 

[Cartman2000]

Therefore i'm confuse whether to get one superzoom lens for convenience or get the combo which i believe will have a better quality due to the F stop?

How do larger apertures affect "quality"?

 

[calebk]

sharpness depends if the lens is perfectly callibrated or at least within tolerance as well as the photographer`s skill.

with the tamron you get an F2.8 as well as the 55-250 which is an IS capable zoom. The idea is if one lens got problem got backup.

Sharpness is the lens' intrinsic ability to resolve detail. Calibration does not adjust sharpness directly. While it is true that a properly calibrated lens will usually be sharp, it is also true that a lens that is inherently soft, though calibrated, will still produce soft images.

 

[2evans]

Hi, i'm kind of new to photography and i'm really interested in it

Just like to check whether shld i get a superzoom lens like canon 18-200mm / tamron 18-270mm or shld i get a 17-50 tamron combo with a 55-250mm? ( i checked and realise that both will cost around the same) my budget is around a thousand or lesser.

Thanks alot, i know that superzoom lens will nt be as sharp and IQ as a tamron but it does not need to change lens and can bring out easily for travel.

Any expert can advise me? As in how superzoom lens fared compared to (17-50 tamron combo with a 55-250) and which will be more worthwhile thanks.. coz i afraid of buying and regret. And erm i like to take more pictures on landscape and flowers and stuff more, but will occasionally take potraits too..

Easiest way to see if you want to go with 1 super zoom versus 2 lenses is to rent them for a day or two? You'll know if changing lenses is for you versus having an all in one lens. Plus, you'll be able to look at the photos at home on your computer and can weigh the IQ of 1 lens versus a multi setup.

 

[Limsgp]

If you print at 4R or post web-sized pictures on the web, the super zoom might be more suitable as it is convenient and serves most of your needs, and you can't really see the difference at that kind of picture size and you can get to enjoy your lens more and just focus on taking pictures w/o worrying about changing lens during your trips.

If you are very concerned about picture quality and like to view pictures at 100% or actual size, then the combo would provide better picture quality in general.

If you consider the 18-55IS with the 55-250IS, it'll cost only about $650-$700.

If you don't take fast action picture, you don't really need the fast aperture of the tarmon to allow higher shutter speeds. The 18-55 IS is much cheaper and the IS is quite useful, for portraits to landscapes to flowers.

Hi, i'm kind of new to photography and i'm really interested in it

Just like to check whether shld i get a superzoom lens like canon 18-200mm / tamron 18-270mm or shld i get a 17-50 tamron combo with a 55-250mm? ( i checked and realise that both will cost around the same) my budget is around a thousand or lesser.

Thanks alot, i know that superzoom lens will nt be as sharp and IQ as a tamron but it does not need to change lens and can bring out easily for travel.

Any expert can advise me? As in how superzoom lens fared compared to (17-50 tamron combo with a 55-250) and which will be more worthwhile thanks.. coz i afraid of buying and regret. And erm i like to take more pictures on landscape and flowers and stuff more, but will occasionally take potraits too..

 

[Chrisade]

but doesnt a fast aperture allow to have a better bokeh? and looking from all my friends and the reviews >_> they are saying tamron 17-40 is a must buy

 

[calebk]

but doesnt a fast aperture allow to have a better bokeh? and looking from all my friends and the reviews >_> they are saying tamron 17-40 is a must buy

Yes it does. I personally prefer a fast lens to convenience, though most fast lenses are not inconvenient per se anyway. That's why I shied away from superzooms, even from the start.

 

[2evans]

but doesnt a fast aperture allow to have a better bokeh? and looking from all my friends and the reviews >_> they are saying tamron 17-40 is a must buy

It's not a "must buy". Everyone needs to consider what they like to shoot and pick equipement that falls into that category. Every option you choose will be a compromise, wether it be focal legnth, IQ, aperture etc. Understand each limitations and work within them.

 

[Limsgp]

Yes, a larger aperture can potentially produce a better bokeh.. but it also depends on the skills of the person behind the VF to fully unleash the potential of the lens.

To have a nice bokeh, subject to background separation and experience in composition is important too. Having fast lens doesn't guarantee a nice bokeh, and using the kit lens doesn't mean the bokeh will be ugly.

There was a post in the PnP section, where someone commented on a few pictures that the bokeh is "harsh". And the picture was taken with the "Canon 85mm, which has the smoothest bokeh money can buy in the market" (quoted). And the picture was taken at F1.2! Anyway, I'll PM you the link and you can take a look.

Essentially, with proper planning and composition, nice background (thou not necessary nice bokeh) can be achieved, even with small aperture lens. Afterall, in portraiture, what is important in a pleasing background, and it is not necessarily the result of a bokeh from a large aperture lens, although usually a large aperture can be very useful to help achieve it.

but doesnt a fast aperture allow to have a better bokeh? and looking from all my friends and the reviews >_> they are saying tamron 17-40 is a must buy

 

[Chrisade]

i see.. so do u guys advice for me to get a 18-200/ 18-270 first till i am more skilled in photography den change my lens gear?

 

[Limsgp]

18-55 IS + 55-250 IS combo is approx $700 and produces a little better picture quality (subjective). Add $300+ can get an external flash. And an external flash can make a huge difference in certain situations.

18-200 IS alone cost more than $1000. And maybe some minor benefits like better build and non-rotating front element (if it matters to the user, like when using CPL filter).

If convenience is everything and worth >$300.. naturally the choice is 18-200 IS.

If changing lens (part and parcel of DSLR usage) is not an issue, the combo is more cost effective, I guess.

So.. just have to decide which is more important.. and enjoy the process of taking pictures

 

[Anson]

I think I have a similar discussion with Limsgp a couple of months back... :think:

This is what I wrote:

What make me choose my 18-200mm instead of the dual kits lens is as follows:

• Better built quality(subjective)
• Shorter min focus distance in telephoto range compared to the 55-250mm
• Non-rotating front element (good for CPL & GND)
• "Rotation" Speed (it is faster to turn your zoom ring then to switch the body/lens)
• Less haste (don't need to carry extra lens or body during event shooting)
• Only need to purchase 1 set of hood & lens (UV, CPL, etc)

Photographs from the Canon 18-200mm can be found here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=481860

 

[fitzy]

Get the 17-50 & 55-250 combo. Better IQ. Also since you are into landscape and flowers, the tamron will serve you well.

 

[ahbian]

Cost wise, the 17-50 and 55-250 will be cheaper. The larger aperture might be a life saver for some shots.

The changing of lens should be a non-issue, it becomes instinctive after a whole. Anticipation of shots is also a skill that comes with practice.

If you think that you start will 18-200 and then "upgrade" to the 17-50 and 55-250 combo as you get more "skillful", I think you might as well start with the later combo.

The learning curve of changing lens and settings on the fly is really not as steep as others make out to be, it is the skill of composition that we need to develop as we go along.

 

[Anson]

One thing about the 17-50mm compared to the Canon 18-200mm is that the focusing is slower...

 

[Chrisade]

i see, i was influence by the good image taken from Anson lol that makes me think that superzoom can also do quality image too. And yea i prefer convienience rather than lens changing but just to check ( is the 18-200 at a zoom range of 200 .. compared to 55-250 at a zoom range of 200 which will be more sharper and better?) if its 18-200 i think i will choose to buy it instead :|

And lastly, how well can 18-200 fared in night shots? thanks all for the replies.. really help alot

 

[2evans]

And lastly, how well can 18-200 fared in night shots? thanks all for the replies.. really help alot

If you're talking about landscape shots and mounted on a tripod, it should be fine. Shots with flash will be ok too. It's when you're looking at shooting in ambient lighting, low light, that may test how high your ISO can go.

 

[Octarine]

One thing about the 17-50mm compared to the Canon 18-200mm is that the focusing is slower...

Are we talking about fractions of seconds?