View Single Post
03-09-10, 08:16 AM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Ah, so you're comparing a kit lens with a monofocal thats renowned for it's sharpness? That'll be why you're not happy.
Fixed focal length (monofocal) lenses are always sharper than zoom lenses, regardless of how expensive or "good" the zoom is. You're also comparing a macro lens, which are designed for higher contrast, and therefore sharper, images than a standard monofocal optic as well.
This might sound like me harping on but it's important to realise that no zoom lens will be as sharp as your 100mm macro. But plenty of zoom lenses will be better than your kit lens.
It's a tough one though... Wildlife (long focal lenths), landscape (very wide angle) and portraits (somewhere from 35-105mm traditionally) is difficult to get in a single lens. There are "superzooms" of the 18-200mm/18-250mm ilk but they're not great optically. Certainly no better than your kit lens and often worse.
Realistically this requires at least 2 lenses to get decent quality. You could use the 100mm for portraits - it's a popular length as it'll compress the perspective nicely, you'll get good depth of field control and it's very sharp. You could then add the 17-55mm f/2.8 to replace your kit lens. This would be OK for landscapes (it's not
wide but you can always stitch shots together as well) and great for portraits too. It still doesn't leave you with much for wildlife though...
I suppose the question then becomes, whats most important. One lens (to rule them all!) for ease of use and less to carry or more lenses and better quality.
Oh, and cost...!
View Forum Profile
Send a private message to chris-p
Find all posts by chris-p