Why spend $100 more for this lense combination: Can someone explain why I would want to spend $100 more for 17mm vs 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital Zoom
992072
It's a prime lens and a faster lens. It also comes with the view finder, which sold separately, is retailing for $100.
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!
992070
It's also a smaller lens more in keeping with the idea of the compact camera. I ordered the kit with the 17mm since it includes the hotshoe finder so it's a better deal purchasing the 14-42mm lens separately than the other way around.
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less
608750
i don't understand your question. i'm guessing that you want to know which one is the best choice. the best one will depend on what you do. i got the 17-70 because i notice that most of my photos will be shoot at between 18 and 80mm. i didn't want to switch between the kit lenses all the time.. also i wanted a bigger lens diameter for holding filters. i notice that that 17-50 is 77mm when my 17-70 is only 72mm.
1703580
I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache... » Read More I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. « Show Less
241543
Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this... » Read More Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. « Show Less
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
2256733
I usually think of zooms for versatility, but if you were just interested in a prime, I'd say this one was the best combination. 14mm is too wide. 35mm a bit too close (remember it's actually closer to 50mm when you take into account the cropped sensor). 23mm is a bit more flexible as well as being a great lens.
1129944
It is better for me to carry only one lens for wide angle and telescope. I love it. Price going down, because D5300 in coming to the market.
356777
It depends on what $200 is worth to you. Assuming you just have the 18-55mm for a season, will the loss of pictures zoomed between and including 1x to 2x in addition to the ability to get that without changing lens with the higher quality of extra low dispersion (ED), be less than $200 to you?
173411
If it were me, and if I I had to choose between them - I'd begin with the 14-45mm that you can still get new from Japan if you look around and get it for a reasonable price when they pop us from certain sellers. IMHO the 14-45 is a MUCH sharper lens than the 14-42. There is usually one or two 14-45 available "used" as an Amazon Warehouse deal, but I've found them to be new item returns in excellent condition and have had good really luck when I've ordered "used" from Amazon Warehouse on these lenses (especially when ordering micro 4/3 vs. taking a chance on a used Canon or Nikon lens).
2004342
I purchased the Nikon Brand VR 18-55mm DX f: 3.5-5.6 AF-S lens, used, last year for my Nikon D-90, and it is a happy combination. I am very pleased with the usefulness of the 18-55mm, expecially for the low price, I paid in the range of $125. It is actually on the camera at this moment. I am pleased that all of my "old" Nikon lens work with the D-90, although they, of course, lack vibration reduction. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer capable of 13x19 prints and this lens is just fine in resolution for my use. OH!!! the lower priced Nikon d-40 does not operate in automatic mode with the older lens, so be watchful as your question implies, not all Nikons have the same capabilities. I purchased the Nikon Brand VR 18-55mm DX f: 3.5-5.6 AF-S lens, used, last year for my Nikon D-90, and it is a happy combination. I am very pleased with the usefulness of the 18-55mm, expecially for the low price, I paid in the range of $125. It is actually on the camera at this moment. I am pleased that all of my "old" Nikon lens work with the D-90, although they, of course, lack vibration reduction. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer capable of 13x19 prints and this lens is just fine in resolution for my use. OH!!! the lower priced Nikon d-40 does not operate in automatic... » Read More I purchased the Nikon Brand VR 18-55mm DX f: 3.5-5.6 AF-S lens, used, last year for my Nikon D-90, and it is a happy combination. I am very pleased with the usefulness of the 18-55mm, expecially for the low price, I paid in the range of $125. It is actually on the camera at this moment. I am pleased that all of my "old" Nikon lens work with the D-90, although they, of course, lack vibration reduction. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer capable of 13x19 prints and this lens is just fine in resolution for my use. OH!!! the lower priced Nikon d-40 does not operate in automatic mode with the older lens, so be watchful as your question implies, not all Nikons have the same capabilities. « Show Less
1579847
I have both and the 85mm has a much better build quality, longer focal length, and more robust colors and image quality is significantly better. I rarely use my 50mm anymore. I keep it because of its low price and the resale value isn't worth it.
369534
Actually I have the same question... However, based on the reviews I have seen so far, I think I will go for the 18-135mm. Everybody recomends the good range that it provides, and buying it individually it becomes an expensive lens. On the other hand the 18-55mm will force the need for having an extra zoom.
591604
I have that exact combo and absolutely love it. Unfortunately, I can't compare it to the Olympus 17mm, but I can tell you it is a fantastic lens!
790657
Mainly price. The Rokinon lenses are very good. I own a 35 and 24 Rokinon as well as some Canons. I think they perform extremely well.