UKC

Just starting out with an EOS 700D and the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM kit lens. Was wondering, in general, how image quality compares between kit lenses and all-purpose superzooms. About similar? Thinking to get something like the Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 at some point in the near future.

If they are likely to deliver similar image quality then I suppose the kit lens would be made redundant. Or would I get better results getting a zoom with a more complimentary focal length range and using both lenses?

Don't want to go mad spending money on lenses just yet as ability will be limited. Probably will stick to the compact (Powershot S100)for travel and skiing/touring shots.

In reply to mudmonkey5:
Its not just the lens , you also need to consider the sensor size as well which can make a huge difference.

In reply to mudmonkey5:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-250mm-3p5-6p3-os-hsm-macro/

I find their reviews helpful, they have most Sigma lenses so you can compare. I think that if you want the best image quality you can afford you need to steer clear of the large superzooms as there has to be compromises made to get the range.

Convenient walk around lens for holidays though if you want to travel as light as possible with a DSLR.

dpreview let you directly compare lenses at any setting with their lens widget too.

From that it looks like the canon is way sharper at 135mm, although image quality seems pretty similar and most other lengths. You should definitely have one or the other, not both.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-widget-fullscreen?compare=true&len...

In reply to mudmonkey5: My going on holiday light weight camera is a Nikon D5100. I am using the cheap and cheerful 18-55 kit lens plus the cheap 55-200. I am getting some great photographs here in Kalymnos. If you can afford it buy the most expensive lenses you can afford.

In reply to Mike_Watson_99:

He wants to compare lenses not camera sensors! Read the post

In reply to Beat me to it!:
Guilty, read superzoom and then the last sentence and assumed compact superzoom.
I'll slink off now..

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Thanks for the link Dan, clever stuff. Will have a tinker with it and look at some other lenses too.

Mudmonkey, if your camera can use an adapter to take 30-50 year old manual lenses, you can buy the sort of quality lens glass and big apertures for £50 or less that you'd pay £500 or more for with new autos.

One example in the old zooms is the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and a couple in the old primes are the Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 24 and 28. All of them make lovely images but you won't appreciate them if you're a weight weenie or the first time you miss the action shot that your auto would have made easy. :P

In reply to mudmonkey5:

Some superzooms (e.g. Nikon 18-200) can be better than smaller zooms in the range, but most aren't. Thing is if you just want to use a superzoom, then probably a SLR isn't the best camera for you?

Not sure with the Canon 700D, but f/6.3 zooms are usually dreadful for autofocus performance. Plus with a zoom that long, 250mm probably isn't really 250mm unless you're taking photos with the focus set to infinity. Don't Canon do a cheap 70-200mm or something similar?


On the other hand, I spent a while being enamoured with the Nikon 18-200mm and a small body for travelling, so superzooms do have their place!

In reply to moffatross:

Interesting option for indulging in some low cost prime lens action, didn't know about that - cheers!

In reply to Richard Carter: The superzoom would be just to get out shooting a range of subjects and learning (and possible travel option) until I see where I might go with the photography before I start spending lots of money on better lenses and really getting in to the image quality.

The latest Sigma 70-300mm seems to be getting really good reviews and is fairly affordable. Thinking I might go with that and the kit lens for now.

Probably got quite a lot to learn before I need to worry too much about better lenses!

In reply to mudmonkey5:
Get a 70-300 or so (or save for a while and get a 300f/4), superzooms are not that useful. On my FF (now RIP) D700 I had a 24-85 lens that I really liked for walking-around on holiday. Tried a super-zoom, didn't like it that much. Too much light-loss at the far end, soft at some focal length, complex distortion etc etc.
I had the Nikon 70-300 and it was a good lens, being very good around 200mm, and good at 300mm.
A long prime or something a bit faster than a standard zoom is always nice for subject isolation, I've always liked my 150 f/2.8 sigma for portraits and stuff, and hardly ever really needed more reach than that, even on full-frame.

In reply to mudmonkey5: You also need to think about what you take pics of now, and what you want to in future. I've thought about getting a longer zoom than what I have (300 equivalent) and I've worked out that I'll never have enough reach to get the shots I want, and I don't want the weight, size and cost.

In reply to mudmonkey5: Thanks for comments everyone - helped me to get an idea of what I should be looking to buy.