Expanding Beyond Kit Lens

[dasdude]

I've been taking a mix of architectural and interior photos for awhile as mostly a hobby with my 18-55mm. Obviously, that wasn't the best lens for the job but I wanted to get some experience in before expanding my lens "arsenal." I wanted a good wide angle for awhile. After some thought, I finally bit the bullet and got a Canon 10-18mm on a pretty good deal.

This has me thinking about my set-up a bit and whether or not I should replace the 18-55mm with a 18-135mm with a low f-stop, because I'm starting to some portrait photography as well. Mostly, because I like it.

My question is: Are there any major benefits to my prospective 135mm range upgrade or am I getting click-happy and should just get back to shooting?

 

[snowbear]

I don't do portraits, but you might find you want something longer than 55 - I understand about 70 is good on a crop sensor. I had the Nikon 18-135 kit lens on the D40 and loved it. It was a bit short at times, but for 85% of what I shooting, it was fine.

 

[Derrel]

I think there are major benefits to going with an 18–135 mm zoom. You will have a much wider range of focal lengths to select from.

 

[dunfly]

I replaced my 18-55 mm with an 18-140 mm on my Nikon DX. It was the best move I ever made. 90% of what I do is in this range.

 

[bratkinson]

When I finally made the move from a compact digital camera (Canon G5) to a DSLR, I found a used Canon 30D with grip and EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 on ebay 12-13 years ago at a super price. I've been strictly a Canon shooter since 1975. Two camera bodies and a fair number of lenses later, I still miss the apparent focal length range of that lens on the crop-sensor 30D. When shooting, the balance, size, and 'feel' when using a hand strap has yet to equaled by any of my later bodies and lenses. Even after upgrading to a then-new 60D, that lens was, and remains, the 'all around' winner, do-all combination in my book...except for low light, no flash shots. In all but the closest of work, 18mm is quite sufficient on the crop sensor bodies, and 135mm fantastic for 'getting close' while still far away.

Unfortunately, the 18-135 is considered a 'slow' lens (higher f-stop numbers) compared to more expensive 'fast' lenses with lower f-stop numbers like f1.8 or f2.8. Additionally, as one zooms out to 135mm, the f-stop number increases to f5.6...'really slow' in anyone's book. The 'cost' of using a slower lenses is the need to shoot at too-slow shutter speeds to get a good exposure while staying within ISO speed limitations for noise. The result was that about 24 out of every 25 images taken at these slow speeds were blurred due to subject movement and/or my own hand shake, even using a monopod while leaning against a wall. As much of my photography has tended to be indoor event work without using flash (very distracting to those whose pictures were being taken), after figuring out what I needed to remedy the situation, I spent a small fortune upgrading lenses and camera bodies to get the results I wanted. See Photo "33760" in the album "High ISO shots 5000-25600" by bratkinson and other photos in my gallery for examples.

If I could get an 'fast' 18-135 and an 80D (a very good contender vs my 5D mark iii), I'd buy it in a heartbeat and sell much of what I have now. I'm even considering selling the 5Diii and a couple of lenses and buy that exact combination again, keeping a couple of fast lenses for indoor work.

 

[Derrel]

A brilliant and thorough post by bratkinson above. Bravo! Earns the Winner badge!

 

[Designer]

My question is: Are there any major benefits to my prospective 135mm range upgrade or am I getting click-happy and should just get back to shooting?

The major benefit to a longer focal length is less distortion.

As you progress in the hobby, you will eventually learn to consider the image quality as a higher priority than the focal length alone. While there is nothing wrong with the 18-135mm zoom, you might someday consider some prime lenses as well as your zooms.

For architectural photography, a mid-range zoom will probably work well, but for portraiture, you might consider some fixed-focal length lenses in the 85mm and up range.

 

[ac12]

I use a Nikon 18-140 and recommend the Canon 18-135, as a great general purpose lens.
BUT it is NOT a fast lens. It is just as slow as your 18-55. No one makes a fast 18-135.

 

[dasdude]

Thanks so much for your thoughts! This is very helpful as I plan my next move.

 

[greybeard]

Your 18-55 set to 55 will do just fine for portraits. When you shoot portraits, too short of a focal length will cause your subjects nose to appear larger and their ears smaller than normal, too long of a focal length will do make things look a little smashed. 55mm on crop frame is like 88mm full frame (Canon) which is just about perfect for portraits (JMHO) A lot of crop frame shooters like to get a 50mm prime f/1.8 (nifty fifty) for portraits. They are very sharp, inexpensive, and have a much faster maximum aperture which will allow you to blur the background of your portraits.

I think it is important to shoot with what you have for as long as you can make do with it. Eventually you will find some types photography that you like the most. At that point you will know what equipment you need.

Canon 50mm F/1.8

 

[petrochemist]

I'd be inclined to go with a short telephoto zoom that you use alongside your existing kit lens. Having too large a zoom range gives rise to too many compromises IMO.