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?
Solved! Go to Solution.
I would not buy one for a few reasons. One and formost, it is more difficult to make a zoom lens when the zoom range gets very extreme. 18 to 200 is a 11x range and very ambitious to say the least. Not solely in optics but in build quality, too. It will be in the same quality level as the two lenses you have so the only advantage is having just the one lens. Is that what you require? The top benefit of a DSLR is the ability to have the right lens for the right job. That usually involves several different lenses. So you will be defeating that concept somewhat!
I would rather see you get a different level of lens for instance the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. Directly replacing your 18-55mm kit lens. Of course this is in case what you have is not working for you. But this move is into a better built, better optics and a little faster lens all of which can be very useful. Make no mistake the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is a very good lens and offers a constant aperture. A super plus in my book.
Unfortunalely these lens upgrades are expensive and replacing the 55-250mm is going to be more so.
Easy ones first!
The S in EF-S stands for short focus. Any camera that can use a EF-S lens can use a EF lens, too. A camera that is designed for EF lenses can only use EF, no S lenses.
The EF 50mm f1.4 is can be used on either EF or EF-S bodies. It is not actually designed for either. It is simply a 50mm f1.4 lens. Either body no matter, it is still a 50mm lens. It can not change that, however, on a crop body, a Rebel for instance, it will give the same perspective as a 80mm lens would on a full frame body. Typically making it a pretty good portrait lens.
Now these are just numbers and of no real concern except to sorta guide you in a comparasion. You choose the lens that works for your need.
You need to make the decision on whether you are going to remain with crop body sized camera or not. You may wind up buying all your lenses over and that is not a good thing! Is it? I know lots of people that live with crop bodies all there lives and know folks that only shoot FF. There is not right or wrong. It is what it is. Nothing more. Lots of photographers even shoot both, believe it or not!
Now my personal feelings on a "do all lens". For me there is none. I always have at least two cameras and two lenses with me all the time. A very strict rule I never broke..................until lately. Another rule I will never break is to use any third party lens...............................until lately. For the most part they were junk. Oh sure if you lucked out and got a good one, it was pretty good, no doubt. But very spotty and hit or miss. Not for me! But "lately" there has been a great change in third party lenses. Especially at Sigma. They make very high quality glass and they have improved their CS drasticly. Tamron is close behind and getting better. Forget the rest, Tokina and the others for now.
Now back to that "do all" lens. I did buy a Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD. Not quite a "do all" but it has a fair amount of zoom useage. It turns out it is a nice lens and impossibile to beat for $1100 bucks. Worthy of consideration by anyone.
What do I carry? A EF 24-70mm f2.8 and a EF 70-200mm f2.8 Canon "L" lenses. My goto and workhorse combo. That is as good as it gets. There is nothing better on the planet.
You don't want to set your jpg smaller. You want to set it to RAW. Do you see all the photos in my sample are all RAW? Yet with out issue DPP wil make them u/l able jpg. You get the best of both worlds. Bite the bullett today and make the switch. No time like the present.
Do you have a name? We can use? You know ours!
biggs, these pics are too small. I set PP to the settings you showed in your screenshot. But these are not RAW they're jpeg from yesterday. The settings you told me must have been for RAW. I'm going to try PP again with the pics I took today. I took todays pics in RAW=small jpeg. I converted from raw to jpeg in my camera. Hope they turn out Ok when I upload to my Pc.
These pics are all from the same park from different angles. I used PP and zoom browser, trial and error, till i got these uploaded. Thing is I don't remember the process I used to upload to pc. I'm sure I did'nt import these to PP, I could'nt figure out how to upload to PP. All these pics are jpegs converted from RAW in my camera, I set my camera to RAW+ S jpeg.. Tomorrow I'm going to use only Raw, and try to convert in PP. I still don't have the hang of this software. I'll try again and again I suppose till I get it right.
Without seeing what your procedure is I can't help. But here goes an attempt.
Set the camera to the biggest RAW file, NO jpg. Do not let the camera do the conversion for you. There is no difference in shooting a normal jpg if you let the camera convert your RAW file! Does this not seem logical to you?
You want to do the converison yourself. That is the reason, the meaning for RAW plus the greater amount of picture info.
I when out yesterday, too.
All these guys wanted to do was show me their backsides! 200mm f11, 1/500, ISO 400 or about.
I love the shadows on the water and the wing tip almost dragging in the water.
nice pics. I'm going out again today and have already set my camera to RAW only. I had it set yesterday to RAW+S jpeg. And yea I converted in the camera. I will do the conversion today in PP. Will post some pics when I return. I will take the same park scenes, maybe different angles. It's a very nice park off the river. Alot of folks fish there, many just go to relax, read, or meditate. There's many weddings there and school events. I see other photographers there from time to time. Great place for nice shots.
The animals I posted was from the Zoo. All were jpeg though.
May I suggest, you take just a few? Any photo(s) will do and use them to learn the ins and outs of post processing.
On first glance, what you did u/l looks under exposed. You might want to check that but with RAW it isn't as important but you may as well get it as close as possibile.
Biggs, I will only upload a few, if that's what you mean. My pics are so small now, i can't see them well, can't enjoy them myself. I set PP to the setting you said......72 and the other number was 12. I still have my original pics on my SD card, so I will check those out. I am going to upload a few pics from PP and you can tell me what you think. It don't make since to go all the way to the park just to take a couple shots.
(On first glance, what you did u/l looks under exposed. You might want to check that but with RAW it isn't as important but you may as well get it as close as possibile)
Alot of times when I set white balance to "sunshine", my pics have a washed out look. My pics are nice if I set WB to "shade" or "Cloudy". I told you my rebel did the same thing. And I noticed a post, put up recently, I lady I think has the same problem with under or over exposure. Did you see that post????
Biggs I'm beat. I used the setting you said but every time I did the pics came out too small as they did yesterday. Also DPP won't start automatically, I had to start Zoom Browser in order to upload pics to DPP. Man, it took me a couple hrs. to figure this all out. And I had to connect my 60D to my Pc, via USB cord in order for Zoom Browser to reconize pics. I usually just put my SD card into my reader and upload my pics, always did it that way. But DPP needs Zoom browser and you have to connect camera via USB. Nothing like you said. Uploading 4 pics. 1st 2 with white balance set to "Sun". The 2nd 2 pics with white balamce set to "shade".