this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)
Photography
4745 readers
25 users here now
A community to post about photography:
We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why wouldn't the third option work best?
Pretty much Just money. If your limited by funds now, the smaller kit lens might be the only option.
If I had to choose between the 18-150 or two lenses, then I'd probably just get the 18-150 for the convenience not to change over lenses (assuming extra weight and size aren't an issue). And then the 10-18 can be added later for the super wide shots.
I've also been recommended a relatively cheap Sigma lens that is of high image quality but it doesn't have Image Stabilization. Would that be a concern with R50 without IBIS?
And is the 18-150mm lens much better than the basic kit 45 one?
It's getting a little outside my area of expertise on the image quality part. Canon have professional lenses which have the red ring around them (or they did for the ef lenses) and I have seen others judge image sharpness etc between lenses and say stuff like it's slightly sharper at f/8.0 but I don't think I could tell the difference between the lenses without looking at the EXIF data.
The page I looked at said the 18-150 had macro capability and the extra reach of the zoom would be the two main things I'd see as differences.
No image stabilisation shouldn't be an issue by itself. If your zoomed out wide, you might need to use a faster shutter speed such as 1/200th of a second or a tripod to keep the camera steady where stabilisation might let you hand hold and take the shot.
I'm using sample figures here, but stabikisation might let you take a shot at a lower ISO and keep a higher image quality at 1/20th second or 1/60th second and might help take a nicer picture in lower light conditions which would otherwise be blurry if it was taken hand held.
But adjusting the ISO from say 100 to 1600 and taking the same photo at 1/500th a second shouldn't see much image quality change.
Thanks for helping thoroughly!
It also depends a lot on lighting. The third option will be good for outdoors photography on sunny and slightly overcast days and fine on a tripod for static scenes with low light. Taking photos of people and/or moving things in low light will be rough.
Lens selection is all about choosing the tradeoffs that work for you.
If you have a local photography store you might be able to borrow or rent a lens for a few days to get a feel for how you like it.
I've also been recommended a relatively cheap Sigma lens that is of high image quality but it doesn't have Image Stabilization. Would that be a concern with R50 without IBIS?
And is the 18-150mm lens much better than the basic kit 45 one?
As a rule of thumb, you don't need to worry about stabilization until your shutter speed is less than 1/full frame focal length. So for example on a 50mm lens, as long as your shutter speed is faster than 1/75 of a second you'll be fine. Stabilization doesn't fix people and/or things moving around (eg trees swaying in the wind), so IMO it's only so useful. To me, stabilization is most useful to me at longer focal lengths, say 200mm+, because it helps keep your framing and focus points consistent. If you're doing longer exposure of static things, and don't want to carry a tripod, stabilization on a wide lens makes sense.
I don't know this specific 18-150, but these types of lenses tend to sacrifice some IQ for a very wide zoom range. Generally speaking, any lens pushing more than 3x zoom is going to be more challenging to design. An 18-150 (8.3x zoom) is positioned as "one lens to walk around with all day in good to decent lightning". You'll need to look at reviews of the two lenses in question though. See my other reply with a list of bullets that impact image quality for things to watch for.