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?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

Thanks Bob for the info.  I guess there's no good way for me to tell if a lens is really tops, other than trying it for myself and reading reviews.

Correct.

BTW.... I took some shots today and got varing results.  Most of my shots at the park are all pretty much good, fall in the same space of good shots give or take a back one here or there.  Today I got a chance to take a couple's pic, they posed for me.

If someone poses for you, and you have any notion of ever selling the picture, you should get a model release. That's especially true if the subject is a child, in which case the model release has to be signed by a parent or legal guardian. (A baby sitter or nanny won't do.) No agency will touch a picture of a child unless it's accompanied by a model release. And before you ask, model release forms abound on the Internet. Google and ye shall find.

My pics were fine around 10 ft away as usual.  But when I moved in close, maybe to a couple ft, the pic was very bright, had a washed out look.  I tried to adjust my exposure compensation with no luck.  The pic came out either too light, or too dark.  What is it I did wrong???   What do I need to do for closeups???    It was very cloudy today, even sprinkled a little rain.  Usually very sunny when I go there.   My pics were fine farther away.   Maybe I should stand back and zoom in with my lens.

That's a hard one to guess, especially without seeing examples. But start by making sure you're not inadvertantly using "spot" or "partial" metering (as opposed to the more normal "evaluative" or "center-weighted"). Those should be used only in special cases, because they can cause the camera to misread or ignore the overall lighting of a scene.

[jazzman1]

Hey Bob, Ijust lost a long message and there's nothing in  autosave.  I'm not feeling so great right now, I'm going to lay down abit.  Will get back later.  Sorry my friend just not one of my better days.

[jazzman1]

Sorry Biggs I have to get back later.  I'm not feeling well and going to lay down.  I will return later.

[daleg]

wow,  this is quite a thread.  I had no idea I had ventured into a digital photography course.  Nice job - Bob from Boston!  while I didn't have the time to read all of your offerings and subjects, you sure provided an incredible amount of 1 on 1 instruction.  where were you when I made the leap from film to digital?

at the risk of hijacking the thread (and discussing Canon's EF-S 18-200mm lens), I'll introduce myself as a fairly recent (couple of years) migrant from the ancient land of film photography where for a generation or more, I was a loyal minion of the dark side and one who frequently messed around with my v-series hassies.

photography has been an avocation for me, and not an occupation.  to some extent, I blame my current evolvement on my sherpa, CFO, wife, better-half, etc. - for from her mouth came those fatal words - "why don't you..." - followed by the unforced and non-recoverable error - "...purchase a DSLR?"  the rest as they say, is history.  and believe me, many dead presidents have passed through our accounts from this "error."

Anyhow, Canon at that time was about to launch the EOS 70D - so the 60D kits were available at a substantial discount.  To briefly digress, I consider "gear" to be tantamount to a carpenter's tools.  As a carpenter cannot build much without his/her tools, likewise for a photographer's images.  And to take this a step further, except for ergonomics, I am much more focused (pardon da pun) on IQ (image quality) than the logos and numbers on my gear.  IOW, if I am to impress anybody, please let it be from my images and not my gear.  Besides, I love a good bargain - (ala, the EF 28-135mm - which, big secret, is oft' to be found "used" for circa $150).  So at my entry point to DSLRs, the 60D was a great value/$.

I impulsively added the ef-s 18-200mm kit lens - for compositional flexibility while I deciphered some of the mysteries of this newfangled "magic" box.   A couple of years and 50,000 or so images later, that 60D went off to college with my goddaughter and it has been superceeded by the 70D, 5D,  5D2,  1D3, X100s (fuji) and G12 - not in that order. 

Oh - and that 18-200mm lens?  it went nowhere, as it pretty much stays mounted to the 70D - and yes, my lens list now includes a total of 24 lenses  - of which this lowly 18-200mm was the first obtained.

Statistically, and this isn't even close, the 18-200mm is by far my most frequently used lens.  One word:  convenience.  yeah the barrel droops, yeah other glass is sharper, yeah it's slow as cold molassis, yeah its build quality sucks, and yeah the barrel lock is painful to use, and the worst fault - no red ring!. So all it does is take good pictures - at **bleep** near any focal length. drat. it seems safe to assume that adding this to my gear list will impress NOBODY on this or any other photo forum or message board.  ah, but there ARE those pesky images...

I recently crossed paths with the following comments and obervation from a big name photographer -  and while usually I advise forming one's own opinions - in fairness, Mr. Kelby does bring significant credibility to this discussion:

"I have one of these 18–200mm lenses and, honestly, I love mine dearly. Now, you will see some photographers in forums online saying that these lenses are basically beneath them, because they’re not as sharp as they could be, or they’re not as rugged as the more expensive lenses, etc. Don’t let that throw you. I don’t know a single photographer that actually has one of these that doesn’t love it, mostly because when it’s on your camera, you’re never going to say, “Oh, I missed that shot because I didn’t have the right lens,” because it does it all in one lens. As for quality, I have a 30x40" print of a photo I took with that lens while on vacation, framed, and hanging in my home. Everybody loves it, and it looks perfectly sharp and crisp all the way through."  - - -   Scott Kelby, Digital Photography 3

Speaking only for myself, many if not most of my photographic excursions take me to places where I haven't a clue what I'll encounter.  Combine such uncertainty with my inability to venture forth lugging a bag full of primes and red-ringed lenses.  My sherpa would not  be pleased or amused.  And let me tell ya, when my sherpa's unhappy - - let's not go there.

As example, earlier this year we made reservations for a mid-week venture to the cherry blossoms in wash dc.  Sadly, all this global warming froze the **bleep** trees - resulting in our missing any blooms by 12-14 days (so much for effective planning)...  but the trip happened regardless - and I roamed the capitol with my trusted 70D w/18-200 & my 5D2 w/17-40 f4L and the totally manual (focus and appertue) UWA samyang 14mm f2.8, a fun lens.  The numbers? images were ~ 75% vs 25% in favor of the 18-200mm.

As far as IQ, until I need to produce wall-sized prints for public display, I remain confident in my work and IQ with this lens.

It works for me.

[ebiggs1]

I generally refrain form doing this because I don't usually put folks gear down but since it is Scott Kelby, here goes.

"I don’t know a single photographer that actually has one of these that doesn’t love it,..."

OK here is the first one.  I don't love it and I would not even consider buying one.  No photographer buddy of mine has one or would buy one either.

"... mostly because when it’s on your camera, you’re never going to say, “Oh, I missed that shot because I didn’t have the right lens,” because it does it all in one lens."

Right?  Might miss it because it couldn't focus or didn't focus fast enough.  Or a myrid of other miss fortunes with it.

"I have a 30x40" print of a photo I took with that lens while on vacation, framed, and hanging in my home. Everybody loves it,..."

Hmmm, I must have missed it.

But this is the bottom line ......

"As far as IQ, until I need to produce wall-sized prints for public display, I remain confident in my work and IQ with this lens.

 It works for me."

I am glad you see usefulnees in your gears and you should not let me or anybody else discourage or put down any of it.  As long as you are getting the results you want forget what Scott Kelby or me think about it.

[jazzman1]

LOL.  When I 1st came back I had a private chuckle.  I did'nt even have to guess at what was said.  I had a good idea where you would go (grin)

I had to go lay down, not my best day.  Did'nt tell you I'm recovering from Cancer surgery.  Had surgery at Mayo Clinic last month.  I'm almost back in the pink though.  Going to finish the other posts now

[jazzman1]

I buy gear, lenses and cameras, to play with.  Not to use like most if not all of you out there.  This is my hobby now.  At this point our goals are totally different.  I want to know the ins and outs of as much of this stuff as I can.  If I don't like something, I sell it and move on.  Never used to do that.  The fact that I have dups in several focal lengths is because the lenses are so good they have found a home here.  I just sold my 1D Mk III so that let me buy the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens.  So far, just a few days worth, it is going to find a home here, too.  I may even recommend it later on if it still impresses me.  Not made of money or have money to burn.  But remember I did have a company that did.

The hourse picture was from about 10 to 12 feet at 70mm.  Pretty darn sharp!

It's Ok to have our grownup toys.  Have fun you deserve it, you paid your dues.  rRch or not.....I still say it must be nice.  Your pic is very sharp, good color, and excellent shot.  I thought you took that shot farther away.

BTW....where do you sell your gear???

You don't email RAW.  If you did people may not be able to see them anyway.  You email the jpg you make from a RAW file.  The RAW file does not exist after your editor.  The difference is you control the output and not your camera.  The camera can not see your photo.  You can.  You decide how it looks.  You decide how it is used and the format.  You are not unusual in this as I have resistance from folks using RAW.  Some just will not.  And if they are that against it, I don't push it any further.  Either you want the best or you don't.  Its your choice.  Are you going to buy that $2500 dollar Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens and than put black tape over half the front element?  I don't think so but that is what you are doing if you shoot jpg

I think at times you must think I resist things just to be stubborn!!!   I assure you, some days I'm doing the best I can.  This stuff don't come easy as it is, and at 68  yrs old it can be darn right hard.  Biggs I know I may not always move at the pace you would like, but if I tell you I will do something I will.  I will say no quick if that's my decsion, so trust me. my word is good.  I have no problem shooting in RAW, long as I can convert to jpeg for email.  But I do have to learn how to edit with the software.  Digital Photo Professional software came with my T3i and my 60D.  I believe it will edit RAW. I have over basic programs from Canon that I think will work also.   I will begin trying to  learn my friend.  But don't expect me to master it overnote.  Even Rome was not builtin a day.

One thing that is confusing you so much is your contridiction of views and advise.  It is fine to get different views but at this early learning stage you really need to decide on and depend on one or two.  Of course all this is up to you, using RAW or not, googling everything, reading reviews, f-stops and focal lengths, etc, but not to the point of confusion.

The best thing is to get into a class with a good instructor and do as they inform.  After you get the basic understanding, than you can venture out and get all the opposing views and thoughts.  Just not now

I think you're wrong about what's confusing me.  It's not that I get answers other places that confuse me, it's that I have no one to explain things when I have questions and don't quite understand, as you and Bob do.  I am just as confused at times here, but you and Bob are available to help me sort things out, that's the difference.  But I do agree that I will cut down on that.  If for no other reason that it's time consuming, and time better spent on working on the things you and Bob suggest to me.  Time better spent on implimenting the things I'm learning here. I will be taking Photo classes for the next 3 saturdays.  

This statement shows you still do not understand why this photo is significant.  And that is just from not enough experience and knowledge yet.  It will come but I believe you are getting confusing points of view and that is stymining you. Everybody on the web are not as great a teacher as Bob from Boston and me!    <-----joke inserted here

DICISION TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess if my answer was not sufficent, then I guess there ismore to learn to give a propwr answer.  I already said having the best photo knowledge does'nt make one even a fair teacher.  Everyone don't have those talents.  You and bob are great in my judgement, and frankly I like both you guys style.  You may be a little pushy, but you always give me a reasonable answer.  And you've never told me to stop asking qustions.  That's one thing I think makes a good teacher. You and Bob have different approaches, and I like both.  Bob is more to the point and short.  You on the otherhand can be long winded.  But you've never said anything not needing to be said.  You're more through in your answers, you give alot of info.   Both of you guys style get the job done and that's all that counts.  I caught the smiley, I agree.

[daleg]

wow. and I thought my post was friendly.

[jazzman1]

Bob I do understand now that knowing a good lens is something of an art, and learned knowledge over the years.  Your answer told me just what I needed to know.

Thanks for the info about models posing.  Good to now that upfront.  But these guys were 2 people that I just met and they were happy I took there pics.  They were a couple and asked me to take their pic and send them via email.  We had a nice conversation and may have made 2 new friends.  Man there's more do's and don't's in photography than I ever thought exsisted.

I understand I did'nt give you enough info for you to give a good answer, sorry bout that.  But my camera was set on "evaluative" ....it always is.  I have'nt started using the other modes yet.  I've began to notice my camera at times will do that in some shots.  But cause this was a closeup of people (don't usually shoot prople closeup), it stood out all the more.  I notice that when I point the camera toward the sun, or even just light in the background, as opposed to the sun or light being at my back....my pic is sometimes effected like that, though not this extreme.  That also happens if the subject is against a light or dark background...my pic is some what effected.  If I shoot into darker or into lighter backdrops.  I'm going to start taking note of that and be prepared to make diferent camera setting changes.  Not sure, but I think that was maybe the problem...my back lighting.

[jazzman1]

daleg ............don't take what Biggs said personal.  It's just who he is and how he sees things.  He's a great guy when you get to know him but has his own ideas about the art of photography.  One thing you'd be cautioned about with him is don't flaunt any reviews, stats, or charts as the gosple with him.  He don't think much of stuff like that.  He kind of thinks outside the box so to speak, but I would be willing to swear, nothing he says is personal about anyone here....other than maybe the reviewer spoke of.   He just tells it like he sees it and many times he may be the only one who sees things the way he does "LOL".  But it's not about you, nor me, or anyone else here.  It's about the art of photography and the gear, and how he sees it.