Originally posted by einstrigger I have both lenses and do not use either on a regular basis, mainly because I have better lenses available. Your feeling of "oh they are OK, but nothing special" is probably shared by many. I know when I go out to shoot, they are not the lenses I reach for, especially when compared to the 16-45, 17-70, 16-50, 50-135, or even the 55-300mm. Aside from the WR aspect, both the 18-55 and 50-200 are mediocre in performance. Sure, they each have their sweet spot in which you can pull good IQ, but the other lenses mentioned do so much more easily and at many more ranges.
I guess that the 16-50 and 60-250/50-135 would have been better choices, but I also need to watch the weight I carry, so they weren't realistic options for me, in terms of weather resistance.
I don't expect them to perform like the more special lenses (you can see I love primes) but right now, I don't venture out into foul weather at all, whereas with the WRs I'll be more inclined to do that
Originally posted by northcoastgreg If you expect them to perform as kit lenses, you'll likely be happy with your results.
Naww, I know they won't perform like the limiteds, but as kit lenses, plus the WR when its raining or dusty... I think I'm going to be happy enough to get out amongst it with them. The thing is, if its raining or dusty now I don't go out at all... better to go, than not, I reckon.
Last edited by kyteflyer; 03-11-2011 at 02:16 PM.
Reason: additional quote/reply