Want to ask if I should get a 18-55 or 18-135 to go with Canon 550D

[urns13]

Hey guys and girls,

Just wish to seek your experts' opinions on the above-mentioned. The one which is selling with the 18-55 lens is $1300 and the one which is selling with the 18-135 lens is $1600. Prefer to get one lens for multi-purposes so tend towards paying $1600 for 18-135 which works out to be $300 more than the 18-55 one. Do you all think it's worth it?

 

[eosdigital]

I think this thread should be in Canon subforum.

The 18-55mm is Kit 1 lens while the 18-135 is Kit II.

Personally i will recommend Kit II as the 18-135 is much better than the 18-55 in terms of IQ and build quality.

But if you dont mind having a shorter zoom lens, i would recommend you to get the body alone first and then getting the 15-85mm lens, which has the best IQ of all 3 lens

 

[danheng1]

I think you should go for the 18-135. No need to change lens should you need a tele-zoom. You can buy another 50 1.8mm for low light and potraiture shoots. I think this set-up will cover 90% of your needs.

 

[ovaltinemilo]

I feel usually if you get 18-135 with body(kit II) is usually worth while. If you wana upgrade 18-55 to 18-135 later, most prob you will end up paying more..

 

[urns13]

Thanks for the speedy replies!

 

[Doctor Inferno]

Add the 300 bucks and get the 135, you won't regret it.

 

[enzeru21]

Add the 300 bucks and get the 135, you won't regret it.

it really depends on the individual... alot of people buy such a zoom lens but realise that most of their shots are within the focal range of 18-55....

the IQ of the 18-135 is not very much better than the 18-55 kit lens with IS oso.. and for a beginner starting out.. you should learn using the 18-55 kit lens.. it will be good tool to learn photography.. not just jumping to a more expensive lens when you don't know the differences (ie lens element, diffraction, distortion etc)

to TS, if you are really just starting out, you have to decide if you really need to spend the extra $300 for that extra zoom.. or would you rather spend the $300 on getting a suitable tripod and flash...

 

[AlongNaga]

Well i think u'd better take the 18-135mm.what's more,it's only $300 difference.but u get the additional 85mm.as a new beginner,u tend to get anxious to buy this and that.if you get the 18-55mm,in time to come you will discover that the 55mm end is too short.you will think of getting a telephoto zoom lens and which the lens is hardly used.just like my telephoto which has been kept in my dry box for weeks.because of my daily needs,15-85mm had been a great companion.i can always bring my telephoto,but i know even if bring it,i'd hardly use it.as it's very bothersome to change lens outside.
So i think you'd better tk e 18-135.

 

[Anthony Lee]

Well i think u'd better take the 18-135mm.what's more,it's only $300 difference.but u get the additional 85mm.as a new beginner,u tend to get anxious to buy this and that.if you get the 18-55mm,in time to come you will discover that the 55mm end is too short.you will think of getting a telephoto zoom lens and which the lens is hardly used.just like my telephoto which has been kept in my dry box for weeks.because of my daily needs,15-85mm had been a great companion.i can always bring my telephoto,but i know even if bring it,i'd hardly use it.as it's very bothersome to change lens outside.
So i think you'd better tk e 18-135.

If TS does not know the difference between the 2 lenses, then, anyone will do, preferably, the cheaper 18-55. Once he knows and understands the real difference, he will not even think of the 18-135, but some f1.4 and f2.8 lenses instead.

 

[YuccaTheFlower]

If TS does not know the difference between the 2 lenses, then, anyone will do, preferably, the cheaper 18-55. Once he knows and understands the real difference, he will not even think of the 18-135, but some f1.4 and f2.8 lenses instead.

That depends. If he shoots more multipurpose, he will definitely use the 18-135. I mean everybody wants a f1.4 lens. But if you get a wide angle eg 24mm 1.4, that 300dollars difference wont cost a thing. And if TS wants to try a 1.8, theres always a cheap alternative for it

 

[Anthony Lee]

That depends. If he shoots more multipurpose, he will definitely use the 18-135. I mean everybody wants a f1.4 lens. But if you get a wide angle eg 24mm 1.4, that 300dollars difference wont cost a thing. And if TS wants to try a 1.8, theres always a cheap alternative for it

I am not talking about focal length range but lens IQ, if you know what I mean. Do a research on the 18-135 and see how good is it? I tried both and I think the 18-55 is worth the money but not the 18-135 which is actually a very lousy lens for the money you pay compared to the 18-55.

 

[Odyssey-Boy]

No none of the above ...

If I were to start again.. I will get the body alone and purchase a

Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Tokina 16-50 2.8

and a Canon 50 1.8

The 18-55, 18-135 and 15-85 will lose out under low light conditions.

I would suggest a

Tokina 11-16 2.8 - since Clubsnap has so many outings on landscape photography
Tokina 16-50 2.8 - for walkabout
Tokina 50-135 2.8 - for portraits. can consider prime lens too.

 

[enzeru21]

Well i think u'd better take the 18-135mm.what's more,it's only $300 difference.but u get the additional 85mm.as a new beginner,u tend to get anxious to buy this and that.if you get the 18-55mm,in time to come you will discover that the 55mm end is too short.

not true... you will only feel that 55mm is too short range when you have lazy feet and don't like to move to compose your shots...

if not then people spend so much money on the 17-55... also restricted by the 55mm range...

for a beginner starting out, the kit lens is more than enough.. its thanks to so many people trying to poison them into buying things that are "wah! much better IQ" and "wah more expensive means better" or "wah! this one very high demand one" or "wah, too basic not fun to use"

my advice to TS is still to just get the basics and learn from the basics... ROME wasn't built in a day or two...

 

[NE clicks clicks]

If its only between the two, I would go for 18-135mm.
But you did not tell what kind of subjects you like to shoot. If its general holiday and streets photography, 18-135mm would fit the bill. Couple it with a wide angle lens , and you are all set to go.

 

[Odyssey-Boy]

If its only between the two, I would go for 18-135mm.
But you did not tell what kind of subjects you like to shoot. If its general holiday and streets photography, 18-135mm would fit the bill. Couple it with a wide angle lens , and you are all set to go.

If overseas, i would rather rent a 10-22, and a 24-70 2.8..L

 

[YuccaTheFlower]

I am not talking about focal length range but lens IQ, if you know what I mean. Do a research on the 18-135 and see how good is it? I tried both and I think the 18-55 is worth the money but not the 18-135 which is actually a very lousy lens for the money you pay compared to the 18-55.

I did consider the 18-135 before i got my 18-200. The IQ isn't that big of a difference. And since ts noted that he will be getting it as a kit, which would be only 300dollars more, compared to if he gotten a fixed f, like 17-55, it won't be just 300bucks difference

 

[leowong]

Really depends what you use it for.
For me, fast lenses are very important.
I would agree with Odyssey-boy on F2.8 lenses.
Why don't you let us know what are you intending to use (mostly) it for?

 

[YuccaTheFlower]

Really depends what you use it for.
For me, fast lenses are very important.
I would agree with Odyssey-boy on F2.8 lenses.
Why don't you let us know what are you intending to use (mostly) it for?

Ts wants a multipurpose all in one

 

[o0darkn3ss0o]

Hey guys and girls,

Just wish to seek your experts' opinions on the above-mentioned. The one which is selling with the 18-55 lens is $1300 and the one which is selling with the 18-135 lens is $1600. Prefer to get one lens for multi-purposes so tend towards paying $1600 for 18-135 which works out to be $300 more than the 18-55 one. Do you all think it's worth it?

if me i will get the 18-135 as 18-55 is really restricted and 18-135 is more to walkabout
if not u can buy the 18-55 + use the remaining $300 to get a second hand 55-250 IS which is a good budget combo ...
and disadvantage is that u need to change lens and carry extra lens when you go out

 

[Odyssey-Boy]

Really depends what you use it for.
For me, fast lenses are very important.
I would agree with Odyssey-boy on F2.8 lenses.
Why don't you let us know what are you intending to use (mostly) it for?

that's why im suggesting TS not to waste money on kit lens..

well for full coverage

Tokina 11-16 2.8... cheaper than canon's 10-22

Tamron 17-50 2.8 ... cheaper than canon's 17-55 at the same time got constant 2.8

Canon 55-250 IS ... no budget go for 70-200.. else its a decent lens.. with IS...

Well i do see some rich people who started out photography..

Canon 10-22
Canon 24-70 2.8 USM L
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM L