Canon 18-200mm zoom lense

[jazzman1]

I'm new here.  I have a Canon T3i.  Two kit lenses came with it in a bundle...18-55mm, 55-250mm.  I am considering getting the Canon 18-200mm.  Would the Canon 18-200mm be a good choice to replace both lenses, or are there better choices to replace them with and keep the 18-200mm also?

[ebiggs1]

"I'm still vague about how that looks...looking through the lens."

With a lens of 18-200mm range you don't have to guess, just set your lens to whatever focal length and look.  MM for MM will look the same.  That can not change.  And the 1.6x crop factor is solely for comparrison to a FF camera.  It has no meaning otherwise and right now, you can forget it. 

Of course you can't see 15mm, with your lens but you know it will be wider than 18mm.  Because it is a smaller number and you know a 28 to 35mm is normal.  Right?

I am leaving for a photoshoot in Chicago at 9 AM, so I may not be able to check back in until Monday.  I will have my laptop and wi-fi at the hotel but time will be short.

[jazzman1]

Heyyyy that's my town, I love Chicago.  I use to go there often 3 or 4 times a year.  Hope you have a safe trip and have a wonderful time with your shooting.  Don't sweat trying to mail me if you don't have time, we'll continue when you get back.  I'll just read other posts for now.  If I need any help I'll post a question.  I do hope you have a joyous and safe journey. 

BTW....I read alot of reviews on the Canon 28-135 mm lens.  !/2 good, 1/2 bad.  Reviews are so mixed one wonders how can so many folks see the same lens so different.  One says a great lens, good value, other say one of the worst in it's class.  Some say well built, some say cheaply made. Some say bad in low light, others say good in low light.   Many talk of lens creep, and say they fix that with a rubber band.  You have to tell me how that works.   But many reviews were like that about the Canon 18-135 mm lens and my 18-200 mm. walk around.  I understand the knock of my lens and it's a fair assessment.  It's not a great build, not great glass, but it is not to me a bad lens for the purpose I bought it for.   Heck I know they make much better lens, for much more money.  I knew that when I bought it.  So I won't let those reviews sway my opinion of the lens.

I asked B&H how much they would buy my lens for (18-200mm), they said $190.00.  Man, no way, it's practically new.  I still have the box and all the papers it came with.  It's still under warranty.  I could sell it myself online for at least $300.00-400.00.  I believe they would sell it for more.. 

Take care Biggs, be safe and enjoy.

[jazzman1]

biggs, leaving this for when you get back.   Went to the park today by the water and took some shots with my 18-200 mm walkabout.  I made a few adjustments in P mode and now I like my pics alot better.  I changed the Iso from 1600 to 200, moved exposure compensation to darker 1 notch from 0, set picture style to landscape from normal.  I changed white balance to cloudy from auto, though it was partly sunny.  My pic no longer look overexposed.  And there's more color saturation.  Trying to figure out how to get sharper pics.   Before all my pics had a washed out look using auto mode.  So guess there is nothing wrong with my camera afterall.  It's just the default auto settings at fault.  All my pics shot in auto mode have had a washed out look.  Why would Canon set auto default settings so lousey???  But I do think the settings I used is kind of odd to get my camera just to take pics that look normal?  This T3i is the 1st Canon camera that did'nt take satisfactory pics in auto mode.  My Canon SX60 HS takes nice pics in auto mode as have every other Canon camera I've ever had.  I will try out the 28-135 mm tues when it comes and compare those pics with this 18-200 and see if I detect any difference in the lens.

One thing Biggs, I need to learn what the different lens are best for, what kind of shots, what kind of photography.  I've read my 50mm f1.8 is good for closeups, face and upper body shots.  I need to know what lens I need for what kind of shot before I decide what new lens to get.  I think I would need about 4 or 5  good lens as a minimum.  Am I correct???  And I need to learn what best aperature to get for each lens.  I know the lower the number the higher the cost.  I also know aperature has to do with how much light one needs for a good pic.  Lower numbers do better in low light. 

I'm also thinking more toward FF body, can blame you for that.  But want to wait till a good one is discontinued, so I can get a good price, or a refurb.  What's your thoughts on that???     I was looking at the 6D FF body, it's been out for some time now I think.  It should be discontinued soon.  Would a 6d be a good buy, being so old??  What would I lose in the new bodies that would replace it???   I think between the 6D and 70D (crop sensor) are the 2 bodies I'm considering.  I also was considering keeping my T3i and just adding a FF instead of getting rid of it, not sure yet, which way to go.   That way I probably would'nt have to change lens so much if I had 2 bodies, or least not as much, when doing serious shots.  My original thought was to upgrade my rebel before going to FF.   But that would be a waste of money when I could keep my T3i and just add a FF body, or add another crop (70D).   All the lens I'm buying from here will fit both bodies I will have.. 

Oh, and wanted to get your take on the mirrorless cameras.  Do you think they will replace our dslr's??   In your opinion do you think the future is in mirrorless???

I know questions, always questions LOL

[ebiggs1]

In the hotel, Aloft, and it is 10 PM.  Long day lots of shots.

"... but it is not to me a bad lens for the purpose I bought it for."

This is the only "review" that counts.

Off to the Smyphony Center at 7:30 AM tomorrow.

[jazzman1]

hey biggs.  enjoy your working vacation.  must be nice.

[jazzman1]

Added Thoughts:

Took my 75-300mm lens out today and gave it a spin.   Had'nt used it much since I had it....got it with my T3i in a 2 lens kit.  It was weird, nothing like using my 18-55mm or the 18-200mm, does'nt have IS, and used it mostly on distance shots.  I am not very happy with it.  In a couple situations it would'nt focus, kept searching (when pointed at ground & pointed into the open sky) nor would my camera shutter button fire.   I will put it aside for now and use my 18-55mm and 55-250mm to practice, both have IS.   My 55-250 seems to be a sharper focusing lens than my 75-300.  I'm gonna put my 18-200mm aside for now also, and use it mostly for traval as I intended it to be used for...or on certain occasions.  Will be using the 28-135mm in place of it.

I have UV filters on my lens, mostly to protect my lens.  I take them off for important shots.   What do you think about using polorizing and UV filters?  I want to try the polor's tomorrow and see if there's any improvement in my pics.

I know you said 28mm is considered normal, about what the natural eye sees.  But I have got accustomed to the wide angle of 18mm.  Hope the adjustment won't be a big curve to get adjusted to.  I will get it tues if delievered on time and will be also using it along with the other 2 lens I spoke of.  I got it for 2 reasons.  #1   I hoped since the focal length is shorter than my 18-200mm, it will give me sharper pics.   #2   I will be able to use it with any body I get in the future.  And a bonus was the price, more than 1/2 what I paid for my 18-200mm.    Most everyone (reviews) said it had lens creep and fixed that with a rubber band.  How does that work?   My 18-200mm did'nt have lens creep.

Ok, Ok, gonna stop now before I wear out my welcome LOL.

[jazzman1]

Forgot to say.   Maybe just my imagination but my 75-300mm lens I used today, seemed at the farthest focal length (300mm) was no father than the 200mm on my 18-200mm.  Is that possible or just an illusion???

[ebiggs1]

"hey biggs.  enjoy your working vacation.  must be nice."

Not exactly a vacation.  Early mornings, lots of coffee, fast food and eating on the rush and long evenings.  Yes, you are right, it is/was nice.  Already booked for next year's job!  Did mention Chicago city traffic?

[ebiggs1]

" Is that possible or just an illusion???"

Not only possibile but probable. 

[ebiggs1]

The questions you have and what you are seeing are your own conclusions.  They either meet your expectations or they don't.

They are all entry level lenses intended for the general consumer market.  Their main most goal is cheap.  And that spec they do very well.  Is it what you want?  Up to you.

The EF 28-135mm is Canon's mid-level lens. One of several they make.  It will do everything better than the others you have.

I have had two of them and still have one.  My first one did have the zoom lens creep.  The one I still have does not.  Lens creep on a zoom lens is common.  It can be reduced by putting a wide rubber band around the zoom ring so it touches both it and the lens body.  Or you can ignor it, like most people do.

As previously stated I don't see the need for many filters.  Protect filters are good but not for shooting but for protection of the front element.  A good one will not degrade your photos!  You should only buy the best there is like the one offered by the lens manufacturer.  Or a few high end companies like B+W.  This also brings up the decission of cost vs reward.  A top quality filter is in the $35 (52mm) dollar range.  So do you put a $35 dollar filter on a $100 dollar lenns?  How about a $150 lens? I probably would not.

Remember they remove as easily as they go on.

The ploarizer has some benefits still as does the ND.  But even they have reduced roles today.  Learn how to use Photoshop!

Speaking of PS, I have lots of editing to do!