All in one lens?

[irene_broome]

<p>Hi there<br>

I am new here and decided joining a forum was probably my best bet in getting some answers. I have a Canon 450d and bought the Sigma 70-300 (non stabilised) zoom. I have taken some great pics and also some VERY out of focus pics with it so in all honestly I woul prefer to sell it along with my kit lens and look at getting something else.<br>

My passion lies in my children, portraits,and landscapes so I would need a zoom and wide angle - I was looking at getting the all-in-one 18-200 IS but I really am worried I'm making the wrong decision with this. There are so many mixed reviews on these lenses yet on reading Scott Kelby's book (who I love) he sees nothing wrong with them. My next lens would be the 10-22 as the 18 is just not wide enough.<br>

I follow a blog of someone overseas and must say I am sooo amazed by her beautiful photographs but as yet, I have not been able to get in touch with her to find out what lenses she uses. Im not sure if I am allowed to post the blog address here but even so Im not sure how easy it would be for someone to try figure out for me what lens is used.... <a href="http://www.kellehampton.com/">http://www.kellehampton.com/</a><br>

Thanks for the help</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Irene,<br>

I'm not a canon user, but some things are rather universal. It does not really matter which lenses somebody you admire uses; it's the talent, vision and skill that makes the biggest difference, not the lens. With your own gear, you unleash your own talent and potential, and once gear holds you back, you'll know what's missing and upgrade accordingly. Looking at others for inspiration is very good, but realise that it's not the gear that's doing it.</p>

<p>OK, more down to earth... All all-in-one lenses are compromises in some ways. None of the 11x zoom lenses (or more) are optical highlights. That said, they are extremely convenient and the majority of them is not bad. So, the mixed reviews do come down to this: yes, massively convenient and always ready, no, not the best lenses and slow apertures.<br>

Whether it's a good choice for yourself... Your uses seem rather wide, so one all-in-one would fit a lot of bills. I do not know how you feel about the kit lens. If you're OK with that one, you could also look at another long zoom (ie. Canon 55-250IS). Typically, lenses with less zoom range are optically just better. It's a trade off with the above mentioned points - you have to decide which you value more there.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>From a purely technical perspective there's nothing remarkable about the photos on that blog you linked to. Aesthetically they're very appealing, but that's a whole nuther factor. However, you may be seeing the effect of the fairly consistent use of shallow depth of field combined with a flattering softness to the in-focus parts of the photo.</p>

<p>For many of the photos on that blog, the blogger is using a fast lens wide open. The EXIF data shows many photos were taken with a 50mm f/1.4 lens on a Canon 50D. Most of the photos are taken wide open or nearly wide open. The effect is often appealing because the subject is isolated against an aesthetically pleasing, soft, out of focus background. The parts of the photos that are in focus are not razor sharp, which is often a good quality - no need to fuss over minor blemishes, crows feet, etc.</p>

<p>I haven't checked the EXIF data on every photo on the blog, but most of them appear to have been taken with pretty much the same combination of equipment. Not surprising - the 50mm "normal" lens has been a staple of small format photography for decades. And while the 50mm focal length is not so much "normal" on an APS format dSLR as it would be on full frame, it's still a very useful short telephoto on the smaller format cameras. And the short, fast telephoto has been another staple of basic photography for many decades.</p>

<p>(Incidentally, it appears the blogger used some photo editing software that strips out part of the EXIF data - very common, lots of software does this - so I'm not seeing the data that indicates the specific model lens she used for some photos.)</p>

<p>I hope I'm not being too presumptuous here, but I suspect you're overlooking the technical flaws in those photos because the content and aesthetics speak to you on a personal level. And that's fine. I enjoy the same types of documentary/record/journal photos or, to use an old fashioned term, snapshots of my own family and friends. But the equipment is a very tiny part of it. The rest is about composition and timing. The photographer for that blog has a good eye for intimate moments.</p>

<p>Try a 50mm f/1.4 lens on your own camera. Or, if that seems too pricey, the 50mm f/1.8 is often the most cost effective lens in every camera maker's lineup. Use it between wide open and f/2.8. Don't stop down too much. You'll lose the aesthetics that you're seeing in those snapshots: shallow depth of field; just a little softness, where critically sharp resolution isn't really needed to appreciate the photos.</p>

<p>If that doesn't seem versatile enough, a fast midrange zoom would be the next best bet. But don't bother with anything slower than f/2.8. You won't be able to get the same shallow depth of field with any variable aperture zoom, which is typical of lenses like the commonly seen 18-200 or 70-300 types (usually around f/3.5-f/5.6), or even the consumer grade midrange zooms with a focal range of approximately 18-70mm. It really needs to be f/2.8 or faster and used wide open or nearly so.</p>

[irene_broome]

<p>Thank you so much for the response and I agree with you 100% that passion and talent are first and foremost but I just feel that I'm being held back by an inferior lens and not necessarily lack of talent (although I would never expect to take pictures as well as the blog I mentioned at any stage soon but we'll get there and the right lens will make all the difference in my confidence levels)<br>

Somebody told me the other day that I musn't waste money on expensive lenses on a camera like mine (450d) - insinuating its an inferior camera which has also helped to reduce my confidence levels. <br>

How do you feel about the Sigma lenses? The one I was looking at is 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC OS but I'm certainly hoping its better than my kit lens before I sell it?<br>

thanks again</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I wouldn't get a wide zoom like the 18-200. I don't know about the Sigma but you should be able to get good focused shots with the 18-55IS kit lens. If you like the softer background type pics get a lens like the cheap 50mm 1.8 which is also good for portraits. A f2.8 zoom like the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50 would be versatile enough for landscapes and children, Also read more on lighting, that makes a huge difference in family type pics, an external 'off camera' flash can help a lot.</p>

<p> </p>

[starvy]

<p>We all get out of focus pictures at times, especially when you want to shoot wide open or near wide open. I use manual focus lenses so in digital, I take more a chance. I took a look at your first twenty or so pictures. The outdoor shots are all overexposed. So careful post-processing is required.<br>

Patience is important when you are starting out with a new system. Your system is not perfect but there is no perfection. So you need to learn to use your tool. I think you need to spend some time looking at the concept of photographic light. Each camera body model would see and interpret life differently. Once you get to know how your camera is capturing light and what feels right to you, the joy is shooting comes back. Fast moving subjects like babies with perfect skin can be difficult to capture with kit lenses with little experience. However, it is not impossible. You do need to keep an eye on your shutter speed. If possible, take the reading first and apply those settings in a manual mode. Review your picture to see where you need to change the settings. Shoot RAW if you wish to edit and learn about the process of creating images. Realistically, there are only three variables when shooting RAW or in a film camera, ISO setting, Aperture and Shutter speeds. For your came I would use the lowest ISO outdoor and up to ISO 400 indoor and diffused flash.<br>

Where do you stand in the learning curve? Are you leaving the camera in Auto and pressing the shutter?<br>

If you do decide to sell up then a system change might be in order. Both the Pentax and Sony systems come with in body stabilisation. This means, any old or new lenses you attach to the body, within reason, becomes stabilised. That, in my personal experience is very useful when doing infant photography. Unless you can spend a lot of money in getting IS lenses for your Canon, it is well worth looking at other system. Otherwise, read the manual and keep on experimenting. Some of images were 'keepers'.</p>

[irene_broome]

<p>Thank you once again for all your very helpful tips. I am definately going to look at the 50mm 1.8 - with regards to your q Starvy the answer is NO I refuse to use the automatic settings as I feel you learn nothing and I could have then just stuck to my point and shoot camera.<br>

I do have Photoshop CS4 which I am also having a great time learning, although I must admit to it being a very slow process with a 16yo, 6yo and 9 month old running around :) <br>

Thank you so much Lex for looking into the Exif data for me since I'm still so clueless I had no idea you could actually do that - you've all been a great help and hopefully in a few years time I will be showing the same gracious patience to another newbie who knows not what they do .... ;)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Irene,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Somebody told me the other day that I musn't waste money on expensive lenses on a camera like mine (450d) - insinuating its an inferior camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Complete nonsens.<br>

A stellar lens on an entry-level body will give you all the benefits of a great lens. A lousy lens on a great body will give you all the downsides of a lousy lens - in other words: the body is not that important, and a lens has more impact on the final result.<br>

As for specific lens suggestions, I make way for those with more Canon experience.... I cannot really comment whether the Sigma you mention is good or not.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I agree with Wouter about your 450D being inferior . . . Nonsense!<br>

However, if you are determined to get another lens, then I would strongly suggest checking out the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF with VC (Image Stabilization).<br>

I have this lens but without the IS/VC. For the type of shots you indicate, I think it will be very satisfactory. My copy of this lens is nearly as sharp as some of my Canon "L's," and with the f/2.8 reasonably fast for natural lighting.<br>

If there is truly an "all in one" lens, then I have really wasted considerable time and money!</p>

[riz]

<p>I have in mind to get 50mm prime. That I think would be all-purpose-lens, reason for this statement is that I have tilt towards photojournalism.</p>

<p>Your views on 50 mm please.</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

<p>Irene, with your 70-300, are you shooting handheld? That may be why some of your photos are out of focus if it doesn't have OS (optical stabilization). Until you're able to get a new lens, if you're shooting at the long end, try using a tripod if you haven't been. That should help in the meantime.<br />Also, if you're ever photographing toddlers that are moving around constantly, don't be opposed to shooting in auto. I do that with fast moving subjects because there isn't always time to fuss with manual settings when you're trying to capture them in motion. The rest of the time I do use manual settings, but auto does serve a purpose at times.</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>Those pictures certainly do scream 50mm with very fast aperture. I use Nikon and have both the 50mm F1.4 AND Nikons 18-200 VR all-in-one lens so it's comprable. They are different lenses, for you definetely the 50mm F1.4 first (I like 1.4 over 1.8 for more shallow DOF since your camera loses some being a crop factor). Start taking pictures of your kids at F1.4 - F2.8 and your pictures will have the blurr like the link you posted. The all-in-one lens can't do it like that.</p>

<p>That's the first step, what you'll find is that some pictures come out fantastic right off and others don't. The reason is pretty simple, lighting. Look at the eyes in her pictures, they always give how the lighting was done. Put a person next to a window (probably not in direct sunlight) and it will look a lot better than when taken likely in the middle of a room. She lives in a tropical area and appears to use window/natural lighting rather heavily but a hotshoe flash can do similar (and at night). Bounce it off walls, ceilings, or floors so your next purchase after the 50mm I recommend be a flash. Lastly Photoshop, which you said you're learning and shoot raw as it will have 9-10 stops of data instead of the 2-3 jpegs have. She uses photoshop to darken the areas that aren't her subject and lighten what is. Those three things are the tools, the rest is technique, experience, and talent.</p>

<p>For tips, look at the eyes in the photos they always give away how it was done. Does the reflection in the eyes look like it came from a big window? In what direction? How big? Or does it look like a light bounced off a wall/ceiling? Look at the shadows, where do they fall? Does the image have a darkerness around the edges and the center/subject is lighter (photoshop)? Is the picture even possible without editing (do you see details in a dark bathing suit AND on white sand... very hard to do without using RAW/HDR photoshop)? Look at the horizontals, are the horizontal or was the camera tilted (she doesn't seem to like horizontals, most are at some sort of angle)? Good luck, first thing is the 50mm. I like F1.4 for more blurriness but F1.8 is cheaper and fine.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Hi Irene:</p>

<p>- As someone has said, yes, those pictures do scream "I was taken with a prime lens!" It comes to no surprise that someone looked at the EXIF data and found that they were taken with a 50mm prime. If you like these pictures, I think you should get a similar lens. Please note that with the 18-200mm zoom, it will be hard to get pictures similar to those posted on the blog. Those pictures are all about depth of field/apertures, and the 18-200mm zoom is rather limited on aperture abilities.</p>

<p>- Your camera is a great camera. It isn't pointless to get lenses for it (and you can likely use your current lenses should you ever decide to upgrade the camera body). In most situations, there are only slight differences in picture quality between your camera and a $3000 body. Expensive bodies really show their worth in difficult photographic situations. Lenses however, will make a world of a difference.</p>

<p>- Shooting in automatic isn't bad, as long as you understand what your camera is doing. A good middle road is to shoot in aperture (or shutter) priority. It gives you much more photographic control, while leaving the fussy stuff to the camera.</p>

<p>- Out of focus: we all mess up sometimes. Have you tried using center-spot focusing (there's a setting that makes the camera focus only on the center autofocus point... you point at what you want in focus, do a half-press and hold on the shutter release, reframe the picture if needed, and then push the shutter release all the way)? That gives you a bit more control, rather than letting the camera decide what to focus on.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>A Sigma 70-300 isn't necessarily a bad lens, especially in good light. Most likely there are technique causes beyond 'unsharp lens' that are the real culprit--probably shutter speed too low to counter shake, shooting wide open, missed focus, etc. And the 'kit' lenses aren't too bad when used within their 'performance envelope'--stopped down to f/8 and they're usually not bad at all. No need to buy a better camera just to get pictures like the ones on the blog you cited--your camera can do it. I don't think you'll find that the all-in-one 18-200 will offer improvements over a two-lens kit. I actually expect your kit-lens + Sigma telephoto zoom are probably at least as good. Adding a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, and/or 35/2 are probably the easiest/cheapest ways to find out more of what you can do with better and faster lenses.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The best advice (to make images like the ones on the blog) is to buy either the EF50F/1.4 or the EF50F/1.8 and follow Lex's instruction about using it at around F/2.8 or a bit wider.<br />But be aware for closer shots, captured at lower light levels (like the baby inside) the margin for error is slim as you will be working <strong><em>a slower shutter speeds</em></strong> AND a <strong><em>shallow depth of field</em></strong> so you will need to practice you hand holding and shutter release techniques . . .</p>

<p>Here are some extreme examples: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=964622">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=964622</a><br /><br />*** <br /><br />I also pick up on the emotive value which might attract you to some of those blog images. <br /><br />Essentially that's the lighting and indoors soft diffused light. (on the blog - the baby inside). You can practice using a window with a shear curtain and look for the soft shadows and Modeling that light creates on the face.<br /><br />Outdoors in bright sunlight, look for open shade and play with a reflector to make modeling: <a href="../photo/9272173">http://www.photo.net/photo/9272173</a> (under tree cover and a reflector for soft light).<br /><br />***<br /><br />Whilst many of the Blog images used a large aperture, and that creates an effect of <strong><em>Shallow Depth of Field</em></strong>, which has been mentioned and discussed . . . it is also a fact that a lot of the “appearance” of the Blog images has just as much to do with the <strong><em>Compression</em></strong> and <strong><em>Field of View</em></strong> the 50mm lens has, when it is used and APS-C camera. <br /><br />Hence most of the Blog images have a similar <strong><em>Perspective, </em></strong>each for the Tight or the Long Shots.<br /><br />The Photographer was either at about 8ft (for the tight shots – like the baby inside) or at about 15ft (for the Full Length Shots like the Woman in Red + Baby at the Beach . <br /><br />You can create a similar <strong><em>Perspective</em></strong> by setting your kit lens to 50mm and not moving the zoom – <strong><em>but moving your feet </em></strong>to get the framing you want – begin by being at about 8ft for tight shots and at about15 ft, for longer shots. <br /><br />My guess is, you have been using the 70 to 300 zoom for both tight and long shots? You simply CANNOT attain the same intimacy using a lens that long – especially as you creep beyond about 85mm - as what you get working closer with a 50mm lens.<br /><br />To get really intimate – perhaps discover another passion rather than copying someone else – <strong><em>set your kit zoom at 35mm and use it for a that FL only – for one week: </em></strong><a href="../photo/9899178">http://www.photo.net/photo/9899178</a><br /><br />Maybe you will want to buy the EF35F/2 - it is a lovely lens on a a 450D. <br /><br />*** <br /><br />I suggest you DO NOT sell any lenses. <br /><br />If you do buy a lens, to manufacture images with a shallow DoF emulating the Blog images: then consider either of the Canon 50mm Primes mentioned. I use the 50/1.4. <br /><br />There is no reason why you cannot take good pictures with your kit lens: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=941500">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=941500</a><br />The kit Canon lens is especially good at F/7 through to F/10 and is a very suitable for landscapes, as you have CS4 then shoot RAW and learn how to correct the CA you will might at the edges when you are shooting at the wide angle.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>As replacements for the Canon kit zoom lens, if that is what you decide:</p>

<p>The Tamron F/2.8 zoom lens mentioned above is very good and for all the reasons mentioned (I have not used the Tamron lens – but I trust the opinion of some fellow Wedding Professionals who do). The Canon EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS zoom an excellent lens – I have used this lens and the reasons of benefit over the kit zoom lens, I mention here: <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00WKQA">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00WKQA</a> (Apr 26, 2010; 04:43 p.m.)</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>As for a longer telephoto zoom or an “all in one zoom” – I encourage you to hang off on that purchase - there is no point replacing your 70 to 300 and your Canon Kit zoom with a slow, 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC OS maxi-zoom – from the frustration you are indicating and the type of images you want to produce, doing so will we be a disaster, IMO.</p>

<p>I cannot emphasise how important getting correct exposure is, to the final product. I do not assume you do not nail the exposure - I am merely stating that many, many folk new to craft, tend to rely on fixing (especially underexposure), in post processing.</p>

<p>Also for landscape work (and other work too) the benefits of a quality tripod cannot be understated.</p>

<p>I think you are barking up the wrong tree looking at an 18 to 200 to be a solution to your frustrations. Considering what you want to do and the lenses you already own – the solution to your quest is not in buying more lenses (save the 50 prime perhaps) – <strong><em>but rather it is first getting better at using what you already have. </em></strong></p>

<p>That can often be best achieved by having a goal (which you have – wanting to take images like on the blog) and knowing what the element are, to achieve that goal (you have those too):</p>

<p>> 50mm Focal Length<br />> Tight Framing – either Tight Half Shot or Tight Full Length<br />> Often softer / diffuse lighting.<br />> Shallow DoF</p>

<p>You can do all of that with your kit lens set at 50mm – except that you cannot get the same Shallow DoF . . . but for a tight Half Shot at F/5.6 you get about 12 inches DoF.</p>

<p>Try it: put an adult outside, in open shade and shoot with 50mm @ 6ft @ F/5.6 - - - that will give you a tight half shot - - - I bet the background is all blurry and the Subject’s Face pops out of the frame . . . so now work on the lighting . . .</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>William is "Dead on"<br>

<strong>Don't get rid of the 70-300,</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Do get a 50mm prime.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Shoot, Shoot, Shoot!</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Irene, you know using "bold" print is like "raising our voice" so . . . pay attention!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I kinda like the song at the blog</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>A superzoom can be used as a one and only lens or it can be used as one lens in a group of lenses. Each lens in the group has a job that it does better than the others. I have a Nikon 18-200 VR and I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, Nikon 85mm f/1.8, and Nikon 70-300 VR. The 18-200 VR is my travel light lens and my street, boardwalk, and park lens. I can switch from wide to medium long tele without changing lenses and loosing shots. I can also leave my camera bag home or in the car and thus draw less attention when shooting candids.</p>

<p>The other lenses I use at other times like at the zoo, aquarium, or nature preserve, or other times when I need the added reach or speed.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4, great prime lens that is comparable on the 1.6x sensor to a 50mm on a full frame. I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8, but that rarely leaves my bag.</p>

<p>Don't let others' opinions of your equipment have a negative impact on your confidence. Take that as a challenge to prove them wrong.</p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't let others' opinions of your equipment have a negative impact on your confidence. Take that as a challenge to prove them wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wise words.</p>

[irene_broome]

<p>Thanks so much for all the feedback - I've now made the decision to go with the 50mm f1.4 so will hopefully have it by next week. I took your advice too and stuck to my kit lens the last few days working within its boundaries - got some great pics too.<br>

I do have a tripod which I have a good mind to throw into the fire pretty soon as I made the mistake of buying a cheap one which is so limited in its movement that its easier to not use it. I am looking at getting one with the ballhead which I've heard is very good so my next few purchases after the lens would be the tripod and an off camera flash..<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p> </p>

[irene_broome]

<p>Devon regarding using Auto - sorry I was confused .. I thought you were referring to the preset options but if you mean AV then yes I find myself using that mode most of the time .... manual is still pretty daunting to me.</p>