[condor]

Originally Posted by R2D2

.. Recommended walk about lens with good performance.

Exploring .. if it works well on the DX format D5200.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by condor

Exploring .. if it works well on the DX format D5200.

It'll work well in terms of IQ but do consider the crop factor which will make this a 36-180mm lens on a DX camera. Therefore it'll not be as wide on a DX.

But the good thing is it'll serve you well even if you upgrade to full frame some day.

[condor]

Originally Posted by R2D2

... it'll not be as wide on a DX.

But the good thing is it'll serve you well even if you upgrade to full frame some day.

I have used the first gen 24-120, and used that most of the time. Very rarely did I use my 70-300 that I had then.

Upgrade to FX ? Not thinking that far !

[M35]

Spent a couple hours behind my Macro 105/2.8 yesterday. It’s not easy and earlier I thought shooting birds is the most challenging but not anymore.


Was behind this fast moving fellow and my Nikon D610 AF wouldn’t pick it. Went to manual immediately, setting the focus plane on a flower and waited. The DOF is so thin and getting the subject of interest in focus is tiresome. It was shot @f4 which is not even full macro. I thought it’s a good start point for me with Macros.

105 mm f4 ISO320 1/1000 s [cropped moderately for composition]

EDIT: Click on the picture for a better view and zoom

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by condor

I have used the first gen 24-120, and used that most of the time. Very rarely did I use my 70-300 that I had then.

Upgrade to FX ? Not thinking that far !

If you had used the older version (like I did) I think you'll be even more pleased with the results from the new 24-120 F/4 with respect to sharpness, contrast and colour. The newer version is noticeably better.

Originally Posted by M35

Click on the picture for a better view and zoom

Nice pic M35. Thanks for sharing. Though the 105 2.8 macro is an amazing lens, it would have been better if you had stopped down 2 stops to say F/5.6 to get better DOF and may be even bumped up the ISO to enable fast shutter speeds of 1/1000ths or even faster to freeze the bee. Not sure if it was possible in the lighting conditions you were in, but may be you can try this next time?

[M35]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Nice pic M35. Thanks for sharing. Though the 105 2.8 macro is an amazing lens, it would have been better if you had stopped down 2 stops to say F/5.6 to get better DOF and may be even bumped up the ISO to enable fast shutter speeds of 1/1000ths or even faster to freeze the bee. Not sure if it was possible in the lighting conditions you were in, but may be you can try this next time?

Thank you for the comments.
Light wasn't great that day, nor did I carry any additional light- hence 1/1000s and ISO320 allowing me to crop for composition with not much of image degradation.

Will try stopping down a bit more to get a larger DOF, not sure how much more especially while shooting at such close distances. Will consider your inputs next time and revert.

[condor]

Originally Posted by R2D2

the new 24-120 F/4 ... version is noticeably better.

The lens is supposed to be not so good at 70 & beyond. Do you have any pics at 80 / 100 .. (preferably on the open end ) ?

[adimicra]

I am looking for a general purpose walkaround lens for my canon 600D. Basically, this lens will replace the kit lens.

Only 2 good lenses are available in my budget -
Canon 18-135 STM, price 27K
Canon 15-85 USM, price 42K

Now, the new 18-135 STM has very good reviews and it seems it is very close to the image quality of the 15-85 USM.

Which one do you suggest? Is 15-85 worth the additional money?
In your experience, is the 15-18 range more useful than the 85-135 range for a walkaround lens?

Any other lens I should consider?

[condor]

@Adimicra, I am not a Canon guy, but of the two, I would prefer the 18-135 if it has sufficiently good reviews.

I have a Nikon 16-85. While the 16mm is nice, I find the 85mm not long enough.

In your case, (like the Nikon 16-85), the 15-85 is more expensive than the 18-135. The 18-135 would have more utility for us non-professionals. IMO.

[navin]

Originally Posted by adimicra

I am looking for a general purpose walkaround lens for my canon 600D. Basically, this lens will replace the kit lens.

Only 2 good lenses are available in my budget -
Canon 18-135 STM, price 27K
Canon 15-85 USM, price 42K

Now, the new 18-135 STM has very good reviews and it seems it is very close to the image quality of the 15-85 USM.

Which one do you suggest? Is 15-85 worth the additional money?
In your experience, is the 15-18 range more useful than the 85-135 range for a walkaround lens?

Any other lens I should consider?

I have used the 15-85 USM when I was considering a lens for my 60D (I chose the 17-55/2.8 instead) and the 15-85 did NOT impress.

Later when my son was buying his 100D (SL1) we considered the 18-135 STM kit and the 18-55 STM kit and chose the later because he was going to get the 55-250 STM as well and did not need the range of the 18-135. However at that time I remember being pretty impressed with what Canon has been able to squeeze into the 18-135 STM.

As far as range is concerned it all depends what you intend to shoot and how you intend to build your kit. In my son's case I know one day I will move the FF and he will get my 10-22 EFS so the range below 18mm (27mm) is pretty much covered. If you shoot more landscapes and indoors the 15-85 range might suit more and if you shoot the street where the 18-135 might suit more.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by condor

The lens is supposed to be not so good at 70 & beyond. Do you have any pics at 80 / 100 .. (preferably on the open end ) ?

Frankly most of my photos are just casual family photos taken last year. I bought the lens coz it was heavily discounted and probably continues to be available at a lower than expected price.

Haven't used this lens much thereafter. But I am pleased with the results I got.

I don't expect too much from this lens, it'll have the characteristic zoom related faults including softness once you get to the far end of the range. But all I can tell you is it's *much* better than my old variable aperture 24-120 model which was sold off within a few months of purchase.

Here's a casual test photo taken at F4 @ 120mm on a D800, focus on the saffron coloured stamen in the background. I am able to make out the tiny hair like projections on it.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by condor

@Adimicra, I am not a Canon guy, but of the two, I would prefer the 18-135 if it has sufficiently good reviews.

I have a Nikon 16-85. While the 16mm is nice, I find the 85mm not long enough.

In your case, (like the Nikon 16-85), the 15-85 is more expensive than the 18-135. The 18-135 would have more utility for us non-professionals. IMO.

Originally Posted by navin

I have used the 15-85 USM when I was considering a lens for my 60D (I chose the 17-55/2.8 instead) and the 15-85 did NOT impress.

Later when my son was buying his 100D (SL1) we considered the 18-135 STM kit and the 18-55 STM kit and chose the later because he was going to get the 55-250 STM as well and did not need the range of the 18-135. However at that time I remember being pretty impressed with what Canon has been able to squeeze into the 18-135 STM.

As far as range is concerned it all depends what you intend to shoot and how you intend to build your kit. In my son's case I know one day I will move the FF and he will get my 10-22 EFS so the range below 18mm (27mm) is pretty much covered. If you shoot more landscapes and indoors the 15-85 range might suit more and if you shoot the street where the 18-135 might suit more.

Thanks all.
I shoot mostly landscapes and indoor.
Can you tell me where the 85-135 range might prove to useful?

I have a 55-250 and the 18-135 will be more of an overlap. That's why I was tempted for the 15-85.

Navin, can you tell me why the 15-85 did not impress you?
It is generally considered to the best walkaround lens for EF-S cameras.

The 17-55 from Canon is very good but out of my budget. Shall I consider anything from tamron or sigma?

I do not have any intention to buy a FF camera in the future. So, that's not a factor.

[blacksport]

It might sound as blasphemy to photography purists but, does it make sense to buy DSLRs anymore? There are quite a few capable mirrorless cameras available with APS-C sensors and interchangeable lenses giving great image quality, so does it make sense to buy the DSLRs just for the pentamirror/prism and optical view finders (again a dying breed)?

Why I am asking is, I am almost never reaching for my old Nikon D50 as it is bulky. Given that the D50 is almost obsolete, I want to replace it with something modern and am inclined to buy another Nikon so that I can reuse my lenses. But am worried that I might end up not using it enough owing to teh bulk and weight.

The Samsung NX300, for example, is about half the weight of a D3200, so is easier to use and carry around.

I agree that the pleasure of hearing the manual shutter fire is something different altogether, but I think it is akin to buying the Enfield Bullet just for the thump.

So what makes people still buy a DSLR?

ps: Please keep Full frame DSLRs out of the discussion.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by blacksport

So what makes people still buy a DSLR?

I use DSLRs and mirrorless cameras so here are the reasons why people buy DSLRs:

a) Better battery life
b) More comprehensive range of accessories especially lenses et al. For some shooting there's no mirrorless answer i.e. fast moving objects/birds/animals and of course long lenses
c) OVF better than EVF in low light. EVFs have a pronounced lag and characteristic flicker and the colours seem a bit off.
d) Better resale value
e) Wider support and availability, especially in India
f) Last but not the least much better ergonomics

When you buy a camera you buy into its system. None of the mirrorless manufacturers can match Canon & Nikon yet. But they may get there some day. But I believe C & N will also answer back with low weight lenses. The new Nikon 300 F/4 E PF is a new breed.

Leaving niche makes like Leica out of this, buy a mirrorless for the following reasons:

a) Low weight & portability
b) Technological gimmicks provided by the EVF
c) Better price to performance ratio at the starter level. At the high end a crop sensor mirrorless camera costs as much as a high end DX and slightly less than a starter full frame
d) Less conspicuous, excellent for street shooting or when you want to keep a low profile.

[gr8guzzler]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Thanks all.
I have a 55-250 and the 18-135 will be more of an overlap. That's why I was tempted for the 15-85.

What exactly are you missing out in your current lenses (18-55 / 55-250)? 18-135 is great if you shoot across that range and don't want the hassle of changing lenses, but quality wise it's not an upgrade.

Originally Posted by blacksport

So what makes people still buy a DSLR?

Good mirrorless camera's are not cheap, hence I still see DSLR's being still in demand for their IQ and choice of lenses. Although, lot of pro's are now moving to Sony A7 series as they can use their existing lenses and get the advantage of form factor. But for someone starting out or on a budget, entry/mid level DSLR's are still VFM.