Canon 18-200 or 17-55 & 55-250

C

Craft

Messages
924
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Been helping a friend who has decided they want to get an SLR with money they have been left by a relative. She has gone through the brands and has settled on Canon, probably a 500D as video will be useful for youth work that she is involved in.

The only question I have in my mind is if to advise on the 17-55 kit lens with a 55-250 following it a bit later or pick the "other" kit lens, the 18-200. Whilst there is a bit of focal length loss I don't think she'd miss it and it would negate the need for another lens so soon.

Have read conflicting views on the 18-200, so not sure really, is the main advantage of the 18-200 that it would mean no lens swaps ? is picture quality worse or better than the 55-250 ?

Thanks!
 
I think you mean 18-55 - big difference between that and the 17-55, namely about £600!

The two lens kit will have better overall IQ, although it depends on how critical you are, how you use them and what your viewing output is, as to whether or not it's significant.

There is more to the comparison than focal length and lens changing considerations, such as do you want to shoot Raw and run the images through Canon's DPP software that corrects for distortion, vignetting and CA? That will benefit both options but the 18-200 more. The 18-55 focuses closer. Not least, the 18-200 is a big heavy thing that is a lump to carry all the time if you're only going the use the longer end occasionally.

Those are all issues only you can decide on.
 
yeah sorry, 18-55.

For her its really does she want to carry two lenses about or one.. but you have a good point, it'd be a pain to lug the 18-200 about if she only needs the length of the 18-55 for the most part. Thanks.
 
The most common setup is the 18-55 and the 55-250. Like you said the 18-200,(Is this the Canon or Sigma lens we are talking about?) you don't have to keep swapping but you lose 50mm. Another point is that, and I know this is going to sound stupid but we have all done it, having an extra lens just for the sake of having a extra lens.
 
The 55-250IS lens is a cracker and very well thought of, as Hoppy said the 18-200 is a heavy lens. Personally, I'd go the 55-250IS route, but it is a personal choice - best way to poss deicide is to pop to a camera shop and try both out - might (might not :lol:) help make your mind up :thumbs:
 
I know the 55-250 is good, I've got one :)
I think I'lll advise the two lens route, the 55-250 can be deferred until later on and the 18-55 will be easier to start out with I think.

Thanks all :)
 
Craft said:
I know the 55-250 is good, I've got one :)
I think I'lll advise the two lens route, the 55-250 can be deferred until later on and the 18-55 will be easier to start out with I think.

Thanks all :)
Click to expand...

A couple more ideas.

Maybe the new 18-135 is the kind of half-way house that might do everything reasonably well? Good value.

The new 15-85 is a fantastic lens. Those extra couple of mms at the wide end make a big difference if that's your style. Bit pricey.

A bit different is the 17-55 2.8, which trades range for a low f/number and exceptional sharpness. I use one for 75% of my photography. Not cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top