Like Tree6Likes

Single lense vs Two lenses for DSLR camera

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. #1

    Single lense vs Two lenses for DSLR camera

    for DSLR camera, there are different lenses option available.

    one option is to for 18-55 and 55-200
    Option two 18 to 105

    how these two options are different from picture taking / quality and usability view.


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,441

    The second option is probably a bit short to do some scenery photography and especially wildlife photography.

    I like to use the first one (55-200mm) for some urban photography (to not be intrusive when taking photos of people) and also good for wildlife photography. You can get some great shots at 20 m away and closeups at 10 m without disturbing the critter. With the second option you wont be able to do that to a great many situations.

    Also the focal point of the 55-200mm lens will be sharp and anything just outside of that area will be blurry.

    Edit: actually you can get some really good portraits with the longer 55-200mm lens as the external areas a blurry making the subject really striking and the centre of you shot.

    I would opt for the first option though this can add anywhere between $3000-$7000 to a new camera kit but it gives you nearly everything you will need on most amateur photography.

    Last edited by virago; 20-10-2012 at 08:31 AM.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    1,781

    I assume these are lenses for APS sized sensored cameras since they are not normal focal length for full sized DSLRs. That being the case 18-105 is a much more usable all-rounder. For the two lens combination, the range between 50-80 are very popular for taking portraits, so you might find one lens is too short and the other too long and have to switch more often. Generally when you want to go with a two lens combo, it is better to have some overlap - ie go with a 18-105 for all rounder, but then add a full frame 70-200 (or 70-300) to cover the long end. And it you ever upgrade to a full frame camera then the latter lens is still usable.


  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by virago:
    The second option is probably a bit short to do some scenery photography and especially wildlife photography.

    I like to use the first one (55-200mm) for some urban photography (to not be intrusive when taking photos of people) and also good for wildlife photography. You can get some great shots at 20 m away and closeups at 10 m without disturbing the critter. With the second option you wont be able to do that to a great many situations.

    Also the focal point of the 55-200mm lens will be sharp and anything just outside of that area will be blurry.

    Edit: actually you can get some really good portraits with the longer 55-200mm lens as the external areas a blurry making the subject really striking and the centre of you shot.

    I would opt for the first option though this can add anywhere between $3000-$7000 to a new camera kit but it gives you nearly everything you will need on most amateur photography.
    This is just an example, let assume one is available - 18 to 200 and other options 18 to 55 + 55 to 200, then why would one go for single or double lense

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    1,781

    The simple answer, all else equal a small zoom range yields a better quality lens in terms of image quality. It is easier to make a good lens in a small zoom than a large zoom range. That said, a large zoom range is more flexible and requires less lens changes (advantage is less lens changes equals less risk of dust into sensor, and if you're shooting quick then less shots missed). However, a large zoom is generally heavier and not as compact. Plus with one mega zoom, if the lens goes you have no other lens. With a two lens set up, you still have the other lens. I personally would not go with a zoom more than 5x focal length, and would stay away from the 10x zooms (eg 28-300mm in full frame speak). The reasons being - lens length extends which I dislike as it feels less solid, range in the 200-300mm region generally offer crappy quality unless you stop down to f8 or so, AF is slower.

    A popular set of lenses is something like a 17-40, 24-105, 70-200. If you are using an APS size sensor then just divide the range by the multiplier (ie 1.6 or 1.5) to get the equivalent in APS-speak. This combo will get you 95% of the way there. There may be some occasions where you will need 300mm (eg shooting soccer from sidelines) or longer (eg birding or safari), but the longer out you go the more expensive the glass becomes.

    I like quality of image over all other factors so I have a bunch of prime lenses - 20mm, 50mm, 100mm which are very lightweight and yield great results, add a 70-200 and then am set for a very light set. At the shorter end, I can use primes and my feet to zoom. When travelling and don't want to carry too many then I use a 24-105 and the 70-200 for a two lens combo.

    Joseph098765 likes this.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,154

    There is a place for a superzoom, for like when going on vacation. it's convenient and you don't have to change lenses.

    On the other hand there's a downside too, like above mentioned, the image quality of these superzooms aren't so good. Usually gives lots of distortion on the wide side and aren't really sharp on the long end. From my own experience, you'll rarely use/need such a huge focal length range.

    Personally I'd go with the 18-55 + 55-200 combo. At least you will have a choice to leave one home, even if you need to bring both, these kitlenses are small and probably weigh as much together as one superzoom.

    Joseph098765 likes this.

  7. #7

    After long time I found well thought, meaningful and straight answers. Probably Spammers don't have idea / interest in this topic.


  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph098765:
    for DSLR camera, there are different lenses option available.

    one option is to for 18-55 and 55-200
    Option two 18 to 105

    how these two options are different from picture taking / quality and usability view.
    I don't think I can comment on quality without knowing the full spec of these 3 lenses. I'd imagine that being kit lenses they come with undesirable variable appertures (ranging f stops depending on focal length). usability is a challenge for all amateur photographers- you really need two camera bodies maximise usabilty in any circumstances and avoid missing a shot due to having the wrong lense or exposure settings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph098765:
    This is just an example, let assume one is available - 18 to 200 and other options 18 to 55 + 55 to 200, then why would one go for single or double lense
    Assuming the quality is similar- this would purely be down to user preference and what you intend to shoot.

    Quote Originally Posted by threelittlepigs:
    At the shorter end, I can use primes and my feet to zoom.
    good advice- prime lenses plus feet as zoom = quality!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph098765:
    for DSLR camera, there are different lenses option available.

    one option is to for 18-55 and 55-200
    Option two 18 to 105

    how these two options are different from picture taking / quality and usability view.
    This is quite difficult to answer without examining the specific lens models. And without more information on what sort of photography you do.

    In general, cheap zooms with lots of range are slower (smaller aperture and therefore worse in low light), lower contrast and not as sharp as more specialised lenses. However, this is a massive generalisation- Canons 35-350 has a huge range whilst being sharp and fast. It's also expensive and very heavy. Same story with the Canon 24-105.

    Generally, you get what you pay for with lenses. What is best for you depends on what you want to shoot, and how you balance convenience, quality and cost.

    (Of course, the most important factor that affects quality is left out of this entirely, which is the skill of the photographer.)

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph098765:
    This is just an example, let assume one is available - 18 to 200 and other options 18 to 55 + 55 to 200, then why would one go for single or double lense
    18-200 changes things somewhat. I haven't paid attention to SLR lenses for years, but last time I did there was only one lens with this focal range that wasn't supposed to be completely terrible at the 200 range.

    If someone wants extreme convenience, then they are probably better served by a camera format which is smaller than an SLR in the first place. An SLR + 18-200 is big, heavy and low quality. The worst of all possible combinations. Just get a compact camera with a big zoom range instead- it's not going to be fantastic when completely zoomed out, but at least it's easy to carry.
    Last edited by jgl; 21-11-2012 at 09:55 AM. Reason: typo

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast