Next step up from a 18-55mm

rjbell said:
Not as sharp as a 50mm and no sharper than my Tamron 17-50mm, that's what i'm getting at. Very handy lens to have for not a lot of money but not important for me at the minute.
Click to expand...

It is.

In terms of sharpness, when used st the right aperture these are all in the same league;

35
50
18-55
55-200
105 vr

And if you can't get sharp shots (or as sharp) I'd suggest more practice because they are all the same (and I know because I have/had them all :)
 
Phil Young said:
It is.

In terms of sharpness, when used st the right aperture these are all in the same league;

35
50
18-55
55-200
105 vr

And if you can't get sharp shots (or as sharp) I'd suggest more practice because they are all the same (and I know because I have/had them all :)
Click to expand...

Very Patronizing. Maybe it not me who need the practice, it's you needing an eye test!;)
 
When people mention sharpness are they using an absolute measurement or is it largely down to the persons eyes/monitor etc,.

I see a potential issue around subjectivity if the latter :)

And if the former they should just point to lab tests to remove any doubt.
 
rjbell said:
Very Patronizing. Maybe it not me who need the practice, it's you needing an eye test!;)
Click to expand...

Lol ok. You've got the tests to do on the website and I personally can't tell a huge difference between those lenses and question anybody that says "this lens isn't sharp" when clearly it is and has a very good reputation on being so.

Sorry you found me patronising I just think in this case it could well be a user error and that I don't believe the lens, any of them, to be soft...at all.
 
ernesto said:
When people mention sharpness are they using an absolute measurement or is it largely down to the persons eyes/monitor etc,.

I see a potential issue around subjectivity if the latter :)

And if the former they should just point to lab tests to remove any doubt.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, hence why I bracketed so many lenses in different price & levels.

But you can tell noticeable difference... and I can't between the above lenses.
 
Phil Young said:
Lol ok. You've got the tests to do on the website and I personally can't tell a huge difference between those lenses and question anybody that says "this lens isn't sharp" when clearly it is and has a very good reputation on being so.

Sorry you found me patronising I just think in this case it could well be a user error and that I don't believe the lens, any of them, to be soft...at all.
Click to expand...
It's my wording that's wrong not my technique. Primes are inherently sharp but the 35mm is the least sharp I've used.
 
Phil Young said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=663&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=455&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Looking at that I think it's fair to say the canon beats Nikon at corner sharpness only.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you compare using the 40D which has a much more similar pixel density to the D3x the nikon is on, the comparison is very close, each a bit stronger at various focal lengths and weaker at others.

I'm not sure why you're so insistent on bringing the conversation back to nikons though, since this discussion is based around canon lenses.
 
Last edited:
This thread has turned out interesting to say the least :p.

So far the Tamron is still the clear winner, and judging by the amount of people who use it and the reviews it recieves it must be good.
 
StuartH said:
;) It is..
Click to expand...

Then its decided!

One thing though, I did say I wanted some reach in the OP and I do find the 18-55m slightly limiting sometimes, would it be worth getting another lens on top of the 17-50mm in future? I mean, I have a 55-250mm but I rarely use it because of the hassle and I'm not a fan of wildlife photography.
 
lol, getting less and less reach this way.

i still think a higher power zoom lens is better. same as you, i couldn't be bothered to change lenses all the time. so i got a super zoom for walk about.

my view is: if you rarely use 55-250mm, then there's not much point being weighted down buy it, if you rarely take it out, then what's the point buying it?
 
wuyanxu said:
lol, getting less and less reach this way.

i still think a higher power zoom lens is better. same as you, i couldn't be bothered to change lenses all the time. so i got a super zoom for walk about.

my view is: if you rarely use 55-250mm, then there's not much point being weighted down buy it, if you rarely take it out, then what's the point buying it?
Click to expand...

I know I am, but it doesn't bother me :p.

Thing is with superzooms they generally have a tradeoff in IQ which is why I'm put off and want the Tamron because its just awesome.

I got the 55-250mm because I thought I wanted more reach, however now I have one I'm finding I don't use it as much and I don't often need the extra reach.

So I'm probably going to end up having the 17-50mm and 50mm (then change it to a 35mm in future maybe)
 
Sarky said:
Then its decided!

One thing though, I did say I wanted some reach in the OP and I do find the 18-55m slightly limiting sometimes, would it be worth getting another lens on top of the 17-50mm in future? I mean, I have a 55-250mm but I rarely use it because of the hassle and I'm not a fan of wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

Grab yaself an 85mm 1.8
 
If you want more reach and want more IQ then look at the Canon 15-85mm IS. It is very highly rated and is wider and longer than your existing lens. It can be had for less than £400 used.

However I think the Sigma / Tamron 18/17-50mm F2.8 lens are a better option, as it will give you more low light ability and can be had for less.
 
StuartH said:
Thats why I suggested the 85mm..for a bit more reach..
Click to expand...

Sorry I should've explained myself more...why should I get a 85mm prime? I'm interested to know because I can imagine it would be difficult to use as its fixed, just seems to be too long for normal use. I tried a friend's 135mm f/2 and it seemed strange to use.

manualfocus-g said:
The Canon 35/2 is pretty useful if you buy the Tamron and then decide you need an extra stop of light :) If you're shooting indoors in low-lit venues, then it does very well indeed without having to ramp the ISO right up.
Click to expand...

Thanks, thats where I've felt the kit lens lets me down. I can happily use the 50mm in low light but its a nightmare with the kit lens.
 
Sarky said:
Thing is with superzooms they generally have a tradeoff in IQ which is why I'm put off and want the Tamron because its just awesome.

I got the 55-250mm because I thought I wanted more reach, however now I have one I'm finding I don't use it as much and I don't often need the extra reach.

So I'm probably going to end up having the 17-50mm and 50mm (then change it to a 35mm in future maybe)
Click to expand...

it really doesn't have any trade off. you've seen my images :), they are equally as sharp as everyone else's (except Aidan's 5D2 + prime).

i know what you mean about the telephoto lens, i thought the same. i had written it as "owning it" at first, changed to "buying it" because you are asking whether there's another lens worth getting on top of that Tamron.

the suggested Canon 15-85mm IS would get my vote. and also sell the telephoto lens if you are not using it. you've already got 50mm fast prime for low light.
 
wuyanxu said:
it really doesn't have any trade off. you've seen my images :), they are equally as sharp as everyone else's (except Aidan's 5D2 + prime).
Click to expand...

You might think your superzoom is as sharp as the superior shorter zooms or primes, and it just might look like it is at internet screen resolution or small enlargements under A4 but for anything more than that the lesser IQ will show.

Superzoom's are a trade off, convenience over ultimate quality.
 
Sarky said:
Sorry I should've explained myself more...why should I get a 85mm prime? I'm interested to know because I can imagine it would be difficult to use as its fixed, just seems to be too long for normal use. I tried a friend's 135mm f/2 and it seemed strange to use.



Thanks, thats where I've felt the kit lens lets me down. I can happily use the 50mm in low light but its a nightmare with the kit lens.
Click to expand...

Not really difficult to use but try the focal length out and see if you like it.(y)
 
Sarky said:
Then its decided!

One thing though, I did say I wanted some reach in the OP and I do find the 18-55m slightly limiting sometimes, would it be worth getting another lens on top of the 17-50mm in future? I mean, I have a 55-250mm but I rarely use it because of the hassle and I'm not a fan of wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

Well I've got a 17-55 and agree with the lack of reach, but the options if you want to keep good image quality and get a sensible extra range are a bit limited. I've just plumped for the 24-105 to fill in the the near telephoto capability (roughly 40-160 on a crop so a sensible match). Can be had for a little over 600 on the grey market, and about 500 s/h. To be honest it's worth saving for a decent lens even if it means waiting longer to get it. Good glass speaks for itself :)

I also agree with everyone here who says if you want a useful walkaround prime then you need something closer to 35mm. There's a reason we all used 50mm lenses in the old days...
 
Dave1 said:
You might think your superzoom is as sharp as the superior shorter zooms or primes, and it just might look like it is at internet screen resolution or small enlargements under A4 but for anything more than that the lesser IQ will show.

Superzoom's are a trade off, convenience over ultimate quality.
Click to expand...

going from kit lens, the super zoom will blow it away. in every aspect of IQ, which from my understanding includes sharpness, contrast and less chromatic abbreviation.

sure its IQ will not be as good as L/N prime lenses. but end of the day it's a tool for getting photos, not for shooting sharpness test charts.


speaking of useless tests: it's sharper than kit lens; it's got less CA than 35mm f1.8G, also more centre sharpness. so i don't think, i know it's better than my prime.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
going from kit lens, the super zoom will blow it away. in every aspect of IQ, which from my understanding includes sharpness, contrast and less chromatic abbreviation.
Click to expand...


You are quite misguided if you think the only lenses better than your 18-200 are L glass. Any of the 17/18-50/55 f2.8 lenses will make your superzoom look like the bottom of a Coke bottle, the Canon 15-85 as another example.

Your superzoom is probably similar to the Canon kit lens for centre performance, but it falls off the planet when corners/edges are compared.

Your defence of your lens is quite touching, its just a pity the reviewers dont see it the same.

The 18-200 at http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/633-nikkor182003556vrii?start=1
For a super zoom, the lens performes very well regarding sharpness. The center resolution is excellent in the lower focal range, dropping to "just" very good sharpness from 100mm onwards.

The borders and corners suffer a little wide open at 18mm. Stopping down however lifts the resolution to good (corners) and very good (borders) values. At 24mm the borders perform better, with very good resolution at any tested aperture.

The corners fall quite a bit behind, the lens needs to be stopped down to f/8 to reach good sharpness here. The situation is very similar at 50mm, however the corners deliver better values stopped down.

At 100mm, the border and corner sharpness drops considerably, showing quite soft results wide open. The lens needs to be stopped down to f/11 here to achieve very good sharpness across the frame. At 200mm, the sharpness wide open is better again, but stopping down does not significantly improve resolution at the image borders and only slightly in the corners.

The lens showed quite pronounced field curvature and high residual spherical aberrations (focus shift when stopping down) at the wide end of the zoom range.
Click to expand...

Check the MTF graphs if you would like a little more confirmation.

As a comparison, the Canon kit lens at http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d?start=1
The center resolution of the lens is very high throughout the tested zoom and aperture range although it does no longer reach the limits of the sensor capabilities anymore. Normally you would expect a severe drop off beyond the inner image portion but this is not the case. The border and even the extreme corners remain on a very good level especially at 18mm.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
You are quite misguided if you think the only lenses better than your 18-200 are L glass. Any of the 17/18-50/55 f2.8 lenses will make your superzoom look like the bottom of a Coke bottle, the Canon 15-85 as another example.

Your superzoom is probably similar to the Canon kit lens for centre performance, but it falls off the planet when corners/edges are compared.

Your defence of your lens is quite touching, its just a pity the reviewers dont see it the same.

[review quotes]
Click to expand...

let me get this straight, you are quoting reviews, and telling me how the lens will perform based on reviews?

also, when have i ever said the only lenses better are L/N glasses?

finally, knowing how to use a lens is the most important part. of course any f2.8 lens will be sharper than f5.6 lens at f5.6. there's no denying that. but step down to f8, it's not so clear.


your persistence is quite touching. but i'd rather shoot photos rather than parked on a chair comparing IQ between lenses i don't own. :muted:




sorry Sarky, this is has derailed the thread. knowing you are not interested in super zooms, i won't talk about it in further posts.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
it really doesn't have any trade off. you've seen my images :), they are equally as sharp as everyone else's (except Aidan's 5D2 + prime).

i know what you mean about the telephoto lens, i thought the same. i had written it as "owning it" at first, changed to "buying it" because you are asking whether there's another lens worth getting on top of that Tamron.

the suggested Canon 15-85mm IS would get my vote. and also sell the telephoto lens if you are not using it. you've already got 50mm fast prime for low light.
Click to expand...

From what I understand though the Canon offering isn't as good. Plus my uncle advised against going for anything with a large focal length range so I'm more inclided to take note from him - sorry! ;)

Thats exactly what I'm asking. I have a feeling the 17-50mm will be perfectly fine for what I will use it for, I'm sure I'll live without the extra reach. I'm not sure though.

Thats a good suggestion, I've looked at it a few times. But the Tamron has awesome low light performance, I know I have the nifty fifty for that but I have more range with the Tamron. Decisions! :/.

Also I had a go on Aidan's 17-40mm L or whatever it was, and I thought that was fine :)

fred_bt said:
Well I've got a 17-55 and agree with the lack of reach, but the options if you want to keep good image quality and get a sensible extra range are a bit limited. I've just plumped for the 24-105 to fill in the the near telephoto capability (roughly 40-160 on a crop so a sensible match). Can be had for a little over 600 on the grey market, and about 500 s/h. To be honest it's worth saving for a decent lens even if it means waiting longer to get it. Good glass speaks for itself :)

I also agree with everyone here who says if you want a useful walkaround prime then you need something closer to 35mm. There's a reason we all used 50mm lenses in the old days...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, looks like an awesome lens! Only issue with it is I'll miss out on the ultrawide shots which I tend to photograph more than on telephoto. I know saving for a lens will be better in the long run but I can't bring myself to spend so much on one item that I could break. I'm a student from yorkshire, I'm tight enough as it is :D

I think in future I will be looking into the Canon 35mm f/2 or 28mm. At somepoint (y)
 
can you access classified yet? there's excellent value to be had on there. people on this forum looks after their gears very well.

there's a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC2 for sale at the moment, although not sure why the person is looking to trade with similar lenses.

also a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS looks great value. 17-55mm are the best you can buy for crops.

not sure if i can link to them on here, just search the bold text.
 
wuyanxu said:
can you access classified yet? there's excellent value to be had on there. people on this forum looks after their gears very well.

there's a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC2 for sale at the moment, although not sure why the person is looking to trade with similar lenses.

also a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS looks great value. 17-55mm are the best you can buy for crops.

not sure if i can link to them on here, just search the bold text.
Click to expand...
How long do you need to be a member before you have access? I still can't.
 
wuyanxu said:
can you access classified yet? there's excellent value to be had on there. people on this forum looks after their gears very well.

there's a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC2 for sale at the moment, although not sure why the person is looking to trade with similar lenses.

also a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS looks great value. 17-55mm are the best you can buy for crops.

not sure if i can link to them on here, just search the bold text.
Click to expand...

Yup I've been keeping my eye on the classifieds (y)
 
oh dear, after looking on Canon section. i've got my eyes on a 5D mk2 bundle which i am close enough to collect.......
 
Hi All, glad this thread has come up seeing as I'm new.

Got a Nikon 3200 w. 18-55mm VR Kit as my first DSLR.

Also bought the 35mm 1.4f at the same time to play around with - Amazing!

Like the OP I'm looking for something with a bit more flexibility and had been looking at the Nikon 18-105 or 18-135mm?

My questions are, which would you recommend? Would either give me better image quality than the kit lens? I can see the clear difference between the images I get from the 35mm 1.4 and the kit lens, would either of the above two I mentioned give me images anywhere close to the 35mm?

Sorry for the basic questions, I'm an absolute newbie to this photography lark.

I don't mind spending £250-ish if you can suggest something that would suit, happy to look at used also.
 
Last edited:
If you havent found the answers in the op's thread maybe worth starting your own one mate.:D
 
Dan Early said:
Hi All, glad this thread has come up seeing as I'm new.

Got a Nikon 3200 w. 18-55mm VR Kit as my first DSLR.

Also bought the 35mm 1.4f at the same time to play around with - Amazing!

Like the OP I'm looking for something with a bit more flexibility and had been looking at the Nikon 18-105 or 18-135mm?

My questions are, which would you recommend? Would either give me better image quality than the kit lens? I can see the clear difference between the images I get from the 35mm 1.4 and the kit lens, would either of the above two I mentioned give me images anywhere close to the 35mm?

Sorry for the basic questions, I'm an absolute newbie to this photography lark.

I don't mind spending £250-ish if you can suggest something that would suit, happy to look at used also.
Click to expand...

You really can't go seeing with the 55-200mm VR
 
Simple question - what does your 18-55 not do that you want to do. Once you have answered that, you will be on the way to knowing what to get next.
 
Oggy said:
Simple question - what does your 18-55 not do that you want to do. Once you have answered that, you will be on the way to knowing what to get next.
Click to expand...

Further focus reach from 18 or lower-105/135 - And to know if any of the lenses available will give me better quality images than the kit lens really, more towards the quality I get from the 35mm f1.4?
 
Last edited:
Bit of a bump, I'm pretty much ready for ordering.

Stuck for choice between the Tamron 17-50mm or the Sigma 18-50mm. I've heard its optically better from some other forums, or am I being mislead?

Also, are either of the two a definate improvement over the kit lens? I struggled with the TP Day photo that I wanted to take, due to low light.
 
not read the whole thing but the f2.8 is a huge help in low light and gives you more creative options.
I liked the Tamron but can't advise you between the two. I'm quite a fan of some sigma lenses since their earlier attempts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top