Canon 18-200mm or what lens?

[DaveK]

You need a monopod. 400 problems solved in a flash, neck spasms solved (I have a dodgy neck and a 500!). little money, Benro monopod head with tilt.
Dave.

[Leo Theron]

Carole - bear with me. You triggered some thoughts with your questions…


The first things photographers buy after the KIT is to get another lens with 'enough zoem'. I helps if it is an aftermarket lens like a 176-480 ZIKMHA, nobody at that point is worried about the hef-stop… Hughhhhh… the pictures are fhuzzy - something to do with unsteady hands and to low a shudder speed. Off to MACRO stores and get a tripot - less than 50 Rhinos should do the trick - until you want to shoot one Rhine Ou and the picture is still fuzzy - not even speaking about that bird on a stik.

And from here on the upgrading starts - first a better zoom lens from MACRO stores... Then a better tripod from OLYMPIC stores. Then they see a picture on OH-D-Pee and more questions are asked…

"But it is not even a Zoem lens!"

"The flippen tripod cost more than the lens…"

"That head is bigger than my camera…"


Last week I attended lectures by a world class photographer. Also saw some amazing pictures that he presented. Some of these were taken under trying circumstances around 1985. There were also shots of him working - and those were really interesting. The camera was on a HEAVY tripod. The lenses were nearly all primes. The best part? The shots were scans off slides, but they were sharp, excellent colours, and are still being used TODAY.

Back to your questions. Yes, the 17-55 does not have 'enough zoem' - but it is incredibly sharp, and it is an f2.8 lens. In the same class as the 24-70 for the full frame cameras.

Last year on a tour I took some photographs - using only a M43 camera and only ONE lens - the excellent 20/1.7 prime with a standard view.

No Zoem…

In the end it is about the lens… and good support!

[FDavel]

Leon that is very interesting! I did not realize that there is a short zoom EF-S lens that is sharper (and faster) than the 24-105. I did a bit of research and I came up with the following:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/42...is_50d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/42..._4_50d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/18...review?start=1

I am now seriously considering the 17-55 F2.8 over the 24-105 F4 as my walk-around lens.... It just kicks L ass in terms of sharpness! I am just not sure about the vignetting and distortion but this can be corrected with processing?

Thanks for the advice!

[Carole]

You need a monopod. 400 problems solved in a flash, neck spasms solved (I have a dodgy neck and a 500!). little money, Benro monopod head with tilt.
Dave.

Gosh, if this could solve my problem - it would be great - I will definitely look into it. The spasms are driving me insane today !! Malic Acid and cold packs - how crazy is this all over a lens? Must be the way I hunch when taking photos.

[Carole]

I have to say this topic is turning into a very interesting one.

Thank you everyone!

Carole

[Leo Theron]

<<SNIP>>

I am now seriously considering the 17-55 F2.8 over the 24-105 F4 as my walk-around lens.... It just kicks L ass in terms of sharpness! I am just not sure about the vignetting and distortion but this can be corrected with processing?

Thanks for the advice!

Sharpness of the lens is important - but without the wider aperture and field of view of choice - it is pretty useless.

For the tasks the majority of people use their lenses - virtually anything will do, sharpness wise. But if you cannot get the scene from your viewpoint in the light available - then you are snookered...

[Leo Theron]

Ms C - about those spasms…

Forget the monopod - go to the gym!


Hat… coat… door...

[Carole]

Ms C - about those spasms…

Forget the monopod - go to the gym!


Hat… coat… door...

LOL....absolutely correct !! obviously this is what I need - but too lazy.