Lens Kit Set : One (EF-S18-135) or Two (EF-S18-55mm & EF-S 55-250mm)

[StarsShooter]

Hey people 8)

I'm planning to get the Canon Eos Kiss X6i as my first DSLR!!!(I live in Japan, but it's known as the EOS 650D/Rebel T4i in other regions of the world.)

So the dilemma : I'm torn between the 18-135 set or the 18-55 & 55-250 set... Links are as below :

http://kakaku.com/item/K0000388421/?lid=ksearch_kakakuitem_button

http://kakaku.com/item/K0000388423/?lid=ksearch_kakakuitem_image

I'm a total newb in DSLRs, and I was just wondering which set should I be getting??? I will be keeping this hobby up as long as I could... and I plan to move further in this field. I won't be taking much landscape shots though, I love taking portraits. Would truly truly truly appreciate it if someone would advise upon this! Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!! :-*

 

[Zv]

I think the 18-135 is the better lens. It's the new version that has the STM that allows for silent auto focusing during video. Also it covers a nice range without having to change lens. As a newbie its better to use one lens so you get used to it and learn. Then as u get better upgrade or buy new leses. The 18-55 and that other plastic thing are pure garbage. Most kit lenses for aps-c cameras are!

 

[Loswr]

Get the 18-135mm kit, and since you like portraits, get either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8, after using the 18-135 for a while to determine which focal length works best for your style.

 

[Zv]

If you're a DSLR noob you might find my blog useful, I wrote a few articles for beginners and it's Canon based. Just click the globe under my name and picture.

 

[studio1972]

I think the 18-135 is the better lens. It's the new version that has the STM that allows for silent auto focusing during video. Also it covers a nice range without having to change lens. As a newbie its better to use one lens so you get used to it and learn. Then as u get better upgrade or buy new leses. The 18-55 and that other plastic thing are pure garbage. Most kit lenses for aps-c cameras are!

I wouldn't say the 18-55 is garbage. It's quite sharp and has IS, obviously a bit slow, but good for the price.

Here's one I took with that lens:

 

[2n10]

The kit lenses are not garbage and produce very good shots. If you are into video then the 18-135 is the way to go. Otherwise the 2 lens kit is the way to go. Definitely for neuros advice on a fast lens after seeing what focal length you use most in your portraits.

 

[AudioGlenn]

Get the 18-135mm kit, and since you like portraits, get either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8, after using the 18-135 for a while to determine which focal length works best for your style.

+1

 

[Zv]

I meant build quality, it's put together like a lego brick house but yeah it can deliver some good shots if ya know how. I actually made some cash using that lens. A great first lens BUT if I were to make that same choice now I woulda went for the 18-135 as it's more useful and covers the portrait focal lengths nicely without havin to change lenses, leaving u free to walk about and get creative too.

Also I would go for the 50 f/1.8 II as it's cheap as chips and does almost the same thing as the 1.4 , it is nice on a crop body for head and shoulder shots of people. I would hold out on that though until you get into your shooting style.

The 85 1.8 is great if you have space to back up, other wise the 50 will cover it and then just loosly crop the shot later. You have megapixels to play with when you have a DSLR.

Oh, and first thing you should do when u get it is to download the english manual from Canon USA, yours will be in Japanese. Even if ur fluent you'll struggle. I got all my gear in Japan (live there!), if you need advice on where to buy etc let me know.

 

[StarsShooter]

I think the 18-135 is the better lens. It's the new version that has the STM that allows for silent auto focusing during video. Also it covers a nice range without having to change lens. As a newbie its better to use one lens so you get used to it and learn. Then as u get better upgrade or buy new leses. The 18-55 and that other plastic thing are pure garbage. Most kit lenses for aps-c cameras are!

Noted & Much appreciated! Thank you so much for your advice!

If you're a DSLR noob you might find my blog useful, I wrote a few articles for beginners and it's Canon based. Just click the globe under my name and picture.

I've checked your blog out, thanks a lot! I'm currently living in Aichi-ken too

 

[StarsShooter]

Get the 18-135mm kit, and since you like portraits, get either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8, after using the 18-135 for a while to determine which focal length works best for your style.

Get the 18-135mm kit, and since you like portraits, get either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8, after using the 18-135 for a while to determine which focal length works best for your style.

+1

Thank you so much for your advice! Will definitely do that!!!! ;D

 

[StarsShooter]

I think the 18-135 is the better lens. It's the new version that has the STM that allows for silent auto focusing during video. Also it covers a nice range without having to change lens. As a newbie its better to use one lens so you get used to it and learn. Then as u get better upgrade or buy new leses. The 18-55 and that other plastic thing are pure garbage. Most kit lenses for aps-c cameras are!

I wouldn't say the 18-55 is garbage. It's quite sharp and has IS, obviously a bit slow, but good for the price.

Here's one I took with that lens:

Thank you so much for your kind reply! That shot looks absolutely gorgeous, and now I'm torn again between the two sets :-X

 

[StarsShooter]

The kit lenses are not garbage and produce very good shots. If you are into video then the 18-135 is the way to go. Otherwise the 2 lens kit is the way to go. Definitely for neuros advice on a fast lens after seeing what focal length you use most in your portraits.

Thank you so much for your kind response! I'm not exactly into video-shooting, and the 2 lens kit sounds as equally promising as the 18-135...... I'll give a good thought about all the comments before deciding. Much appreciated & Cheers!

 

[Policar]

Choose entirely based on what focal lengths you plan to use, but I disagree with comments about the 18-55mm IS being bad. It's a great lens, just slow. At the wide end it's just as good as the 17-55mm f2.8 IS (except 1/2 stop slower, but smaller and with arguably better IS) and at the long end it's about as good at f5.6, but unfortunately it's too slow to get shallow focus and it does have some CA. And I consider the 17-55mm f2.8 IS to be one of Canon's best zooms. The 18-55mm IS beats the pants off the 17-40mm f4 L! Trust me, I have owned all these lenses...it covers boring focal lengths and is too slow to offer shallow focus, but the new kit lens is very, very good and an enormous step up from the original 18-55mm (the one lacking IS).

The 55-250mm IS is ok, too. But switching lenses can be a pain, so I might go with the 18-135mm purely for convenience, but then you get a jack of all trades camera (no better, just bigger, than a point and shoot for most purposes).

The 85mm f1.8 would be nice for portraits. I find the 50mm f1.8 too short, but for $100 it is a great lens.

 

[verysimplejason]

Or you might go "prime" for most of your lenses. You can get a 35mm F2 or a 28mm F1.8/2.8 for your normal lens. You can add a 50mm F1.8 and a 55-250mm if you want. If you do a lot of landscapes, a 10-22 is also a must. I just have to remind you that going prime isn't for everybody though. But if you want the best IQ for "little" money, going prime is the way to do it. You just have to learn how to zoom with your feet and how to change lenses fast (not an easy way to do it but I'd say very rewarding).

 

[FTb-n]

Here's another vote for the 18-135. I have the older, yet still pretty "young" version without STM. It's a decent lens and good walk-around lens. The 55-250 would be tempting if you're primary need was sports or wildlife. But, for every day use, travel, and portraits, the 18-135 encompasses the focal range that you will likely find most useful.

With a single body and the 18-55 and 50-250 kit, you may well find yourself needing to change lenses a lot. This is a pain and increases the risk of getting dust on the sensor. I've been there. My first two lenses were the 17-85 and 70-300. Both good lenses, but I often found myself switching. The 18-135 was more versatile for me when I wasn't shooting sports.

The best advice given to me was never buy a lens until you have already established a need for it -- avoid the temptation to anticipate every scenario. The 18-135 is a good range to start with. As you develop (no pun intended) your art, you'll get a better idea what focal length fits your needs.

If you find a need for faster lenses or shallower depth of field, there are some great primes to consider for crop bodies such as the 35 f2.0, the 50 f1.8, the 85 f1.8 and the 100 f2.0. But, hold off on these until you find the focal length that you like. You may find your interest in photography taking different avenue and wish to explore lenses longer than 135.

 

[Zv]

Choose entirely based on what focal lengths you plan to use, but I disagree with comments about the 18-55mm IS being bad. It's a great lens, just slow. At the wide end it's just as good as the 17-55mm f2.8 IS (except 1/2 stop slower, but smaller and with arguably better IS) and at the long end it's about as good at f5.6, but unfortunately it's too slow to get shallow focus and it does have some CA. And I consider the 17-55mm f2.8 IS to be one of Canon's best zooms. The 18-55mm IS beats the pants off the 17-40mm f4 L! Trust me, I have owned all these lenses...it covers boring focal lengths and is too slow to offer shallow focus, but the new kit lens is very, very good and an enormous step up from the original 18-55mm (the one lacking IS).

The 55-250mm IS is ok, too. But switching lenses can be a pain, so I might go with the 18-135mm purely for convenience, but then you get a jack of all trades camera (no better, just bigger, than a point and shoot for most purposes).

What? The 18-55 kit same IQ as 17-55 f/2.8? Are you serious? At 55mm the 17-55 let's in four times as much light as the 18-55. The kit lens is sharp I'll give you that but I reckon both lenses are worlds apart in all other respects. And yes I own both.

And the 17-40 is a wide angle lens, please explain how a plastic kit lens "beats the pants off" an L series lens designed for full frame coverage. Are you refering to both lenses on a crop body?

You must of had really bad copies of both or thr most amazing 18-55 kit ever made!

 

[crasher8]

If we're going the route of telling folks to use a kit lens over an L series (I know this is on a crop and not the best scenario for an UWA zoom!) than just throw your camera gear in a bin and shoot with your phone.

Someone must have made you a custom 18-55 with a circular 9 blade aperture, Super UD elements and 18 elements in 13 groups!

 

[sootzzs]

I had tha same dilemma as you are when I bought my 60D. I've finished buying 18-55 IS + 55-250. I've changed my 18-55 to 15-85 (much more expensive lens) after 4 months. Not because the image quality was that bad but mostly of it's slow AF (15-85 is USM, much faster) and the extra range on both ends it gave me. The 55-250 in my opinion is an amazing lens for it's price. Though I use it much less since I have the 15-85, I still enjoy it a lot when I need sharp photos with great colors from long distance (on crop like 650D it will be 88-400mm). It is also great for portrets when you take them from a bit further away, gives very nice bokeh.

 

[Zv]

If we're going the route of telling folks to use a kit lens over an L series (I know this is on a crop and not the best scenario for an UWA zoom!) than just throw your camera gear in a bin and shoot with your phone.

Someone must have made you a custom 18-55 with a circular 9 blade aperture, Super UD elements and 18 elements in 13 groups!

Thanks for the back-up!

I wonder what a "boring" focal length is, exactly???

 

[AmbientLight]

It must be 28mm, if you ask me ;D ;D.

I can't get over it that this focal length came to my mind immediately, because I have been shooting with 28mm primes (amongst other things) since the 80s and although I still use them sometimes, I find this focal length not wide enough and not normal enough to be really good for me. Then again I love 24mm, which is perhaps one of the reasons why I believe 28mm is pretty lame .