Which lens would you have and why for every day use
[URL Truncated]
[URL Truncated]
Thanks in advance
my camera Canon 40D
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS definitely wins in my opinion for every day use. A very good range of focal lengths for everyday use, as well as a good low range of f-stops for a zoom lens of that range, not to mention the much lower price!
The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM I would use for more professional portrait and wedding photography use.
Well (speaking like I have the money to spare) I'd absolutely LOVE to have the 24-70. But if you're talking about everyday use then the 18-200 would probably be best.
Answer by Pam on 08 Jan 2010 01:52:09Depends on your budget, what camera you have, how you use your camera, and your priorities as a photographer. I honestly could make an argument to own both. If you are concerned about which lens has better "zoom," and just want a lens that does everything stop reading my reply now and go get the 18-200mm lens. If you are serious about photography, read on.
If you are shooting an APS-C format DSLR (e.g. Rebel T1i/500D, 50D, or 7D), the 18-200mm lens makes a solid choice as an "all-in-one" lens that is particularly good for travel, informal snapshots, or any situation where convenience matters more than image quality. I don't own the 18-200mm because my view is that if I'm going to the trouble of hauling out my 40D or 7D, my interest is image quality rather than convenience. If convenience is the priority, I have a PowerShot SX1 IS that covers the equivalen focal ranges and more for less money in a smaller package.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L is one of my favorite lenses. Unlike the 18-200mm, it is a full-frame lens meant for 35mm EOS cameras or cameras like the 5D or 1D/1Ds series. That's not saying you can't use it on an APS-C format cameras...I use it on my 40D and 7D. Image quality is matched only by Canon's L series primes that happen to fall into this lens' range of focal lengths such as the 24mm, 35mm and 50mm L's. Another great feature like is the fast, constant, f/2.8 aperture which is great for shooting indoors without a flash. However, this lens is big, heavy and with its hood attached, guaranteed to be noticed by one and all. And I use this lens on my 40D and 7D with the understanding that while using those cameras, I'll need a seperate lens to provide coverage down to the 35mm equivalent of 16mm as well as a lens to cover everything above 70mm. This means if I'm carrying this lens, I probably have two other lenses to go with it. But since I only drag all this gear out for important photos or stuff I might sell, it doesn't matter to me. I can afford the glass and I see value in its enhanced image quality while making 8x10 inche or larger prints. You will have to make your own evaluations to arrive at your own conclusion.
I'd pick the 24-70, but that just reflects my personal priorities. They're both good in different ways.
Advantages of the 18-200mm:
* Lower cost
* Less weight & bulk
* Larger zoom range (i.e. convenience of not requiring a separate tele-zoom)
Advantages of the 24-70mm:
* Constant f/2.8 for shallow depth of field & low light hand held photography
* Better image quality
* Faster auto-focus
* Weather sealing (which is only an advantage if the body is also sealed)
Here's a twist though - since you're considering the 18-200mm, which implies an EF-S body, why not also consider the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8?
For me, the 24-70 doesn't zoom wide enough on EF-S cameras. The 17-55mm addresses this - it's the EF-S equivalent to the 24-70. For me it would be the perfect standard zoom. It is, in fact, albeit with a Nikon system (Nikon also has all three of these lenses and in the same price ranges.)
I.m.o. the 24-70mm only makes more sense than the 17-55mm if you intend to migrate to full frame shortly (in which case don't bother with the 18-200 either), or if you need the extra reach at the long end for portraits. And although the 24-70 would be better than the 17-55 for portraits, it still wouldn't be my lens of choice for those shots.
But you know, that's just me. I keep the 17-55mm on my camera 95% of the time. The rest of the time it's the 50mm f/1.4. I rarely touch my macro lens, the tele-zoom, or my wife's Nikon 18-200. On the other hand, my wife has the 18-200 practically welded to her own Nikon dSLR.
0 comments:
Post a Comment