- Messages
- 6,293
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd sooner the speed and better low light performance of the 18-55mm over 2mm st the short end (I'd rather zoom with my feet than bump up the ISO to compensate for a smaller maximum aperture).
What's the difference in weight? Can't be that much surely, and I prefer the more solid feel of the metal vs plastic).
310g vs 195g
£479 vs £229.97 (or £289 for mk II)
f2.8-4 vs f3.5-5.6
edit: found this
Also 2mm at the wide end is a lot more than at the long...
..and I won't start on zoom with feet vs compression
All that said I'd probably go with the 18-55 out of those two, but went for the 18-135mm myself for teh extra reach\usability, but thats a different price range again.
Last edited: