How much better is this 22mm lens compared to using a 22mm of the 18-55mm lens that comes in some kits for shooting studio video with black backdrop?
1824721
Same difference as any prime lens. It doesn't creep focal length and focus is simply more exact. Prime always seems to out-perform the same focal distance in a zoom. Fewer moving parts, less variable equals a sharper lens.
1824722
The 22mm lens is amazing! It feels and has better build quality than the plastic primes of Canon's. Image quality is just too good. 1. Its a prime lens 2. Its F2.0 hence way better than the kit lens.
464448
Although the 18-55 lens is a very good lens for a zoom, the 23 prime lens is far superior in my opinion in many ways especially with the 1.4 speed but the optics are extremely good in the 23 and the lens is built beautifully.
1927593
These lenses are roughly of the same quality, yes (assuming you're comparing the STM versions). The 55-250mm gives you longer reach while the 18-135mm gives you the convenience of not having to switch lenses as often.
108096
Honestly unless you are making good money off of it go with the 28mm 1.8 it is fantastic. The 24mm is exceptional but 9 times out of ten you will have the same image for 3x the price and twice the weight/size.
1644826
The difference is the lens. You will have a gap of 20mm that you can't make up unless you buy the 55-250. That is why I bought this package. But keep in mind that even though the other one is cheaper, you eventually find that you will need the 55-250mm lens.
176993
The STM kit lens has a stepper motor so it's quiet for video, but it's also sharper and a little more contrasty than the old 18-55 kit lens.
44063
Absolutely. I use mine nearly every time I shoot with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. The only thing that you have to get used to is the manual aperture ring. All in all, it's a great little lens. I own the 24mm, the 35mm, and the 85mm, and I recommend all three.
2186824
Notr much. I have not tried the kit lens but the 24-70 was not up to the Zeiss quality standard. The 16-35 and the 35/2 will have much more image quality.
1716265
The only reason to buy the Essential Kit is convenience. I found the filters to be okay. The only problem with a 58 mm filter is that it will give some vignetting at shorter focal lengths.
1813611
The Canon "18-135" IS STM is a OK to Good lens for Video because of the STM. But for Stills it is just OK. There's not a perfect lens out there. I don't buy kit lenses, cause for a little more $$ you get better lenses. BUT, you have to ask yourself, will you change lenses back and forth ? From long zooms/telephoto primes and back to short/medium zooms or primes ? OR, do you like leaving one lens on, or you just don't have a bunch of lenses to switch back & forth. The Sigma starts at 17mm the Canon at 18mm both have barrel distortion, but from 24mm to 70mm, yes the Sigma is better than the Canon, but the Canon has a longer reach to 135mm. DXO Labs has this new Sigma 17-70 Contemporary lens at almost the same numbers/performance as the $1100 Canon 17-55 f/2.8 ! That's how good this lens is. BUT, how well they do on Video Dslr cameras, I don't know ? Hope this helps.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
572806
I actually disagree, I'm a music video director and have used this lens a few times on shoots. It's extremely sharp, probably one of the sharpest lenses I have, and it's a blast to use. I wouldn't shoot an entire video with this lens but you can sure do a heck of a lot with it.
356774
I have both lenses. I never use and in fact just sold the 18-55. The 18-105 is amazing, I highly recommend it. Here's the first picture I took with it the first day I got the 18-105. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=557817730963053&set;=a.321466137931548.70815.321449031266592&type;=3&theater;
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
2073715
It's a noticeable difference over the kit zoom lens. The 32mm Nikon 1 lens would be better at separating a subject from the background, though I think the 18.5mm is better value for the money.Getting blurry defocus areas and a well defined subject in an image is mostly a function of the distance between you and your subject. If you use an 18.5mm for headshots at f1.8, then the background will be very defocused. Step back and do a full body image, then the background will be a bit less defocused.
827133
It's a good lens for my needs. I have found the 18-300mm type lenses just don't do all that well, I think too much range to cover but this does well and being a f/2.8 it's better for darker shots. Heavier than a kit lens but worth it in my opinion.
599173
Without knowing exactly what you are photographing, I would give it a qualified yes. However, if you are going to be photographing from a distance, then the kit lens of 18-55mm is not going to fill your needs. Depending on distance, you may need something like an 18-135mm or for even greater distance, something like the 55-300mm lens. Beyond that, you'll be looking at large aftermarket lenses in the 150-500mm range.