Mike , you are the camera producers nightmare! You have the knowledge and understanding that ridicules the entire regime of " you need to buy this , upgrade now!!!! Or your photos will be shit ! " great , i applaud you .
Mike, since you have paid for it anyway, it might be wiser to just keep the more expensive lens as a backup lens for your out of town workshops, just in case something happens to your cheaper lens again some day? Then you will never be without a lens again in case of another mishap.
Nice video, good message. I think that the "soft focus effect" in the portrait with the 16-55 WR versus a sharper result with the 18-55 may have been caused by the 1/40 shutter speed, handheld, combined with the lack of OIS in that lens.
Love what you do for photographers and the support your classes provide. I have always felt that the camera is only a tool...that the real image is created in your mind and your minds eye. Thanks for all you do. I watch you videos all the time. I have been an active photographer for over 40 years.I appreciate you truthfulness.
The 18-55 “kit” lens has been lauded by many as a superior lens. Fuji X-mount shooters are really lucky to have this option for great photo quality. I bought an X-T2 and later traded it for an X-T3. I bought the body only and purchased the 16-55. I have some other lenses but fell so much in love with the 16-55 that I rarely take it off. “Too sharp” has never crossed my mind. Having a fixed aperture with actual markings on the lens is a wonderful thing. I recently bought an X-E3 as a “walking around” camera. I bought it with the 18-55 lens. That combination is fantastic for going out and about and not carrying a lot of weight. It’s really good for “street photography” (or any photography where you don’t want to look like a professional photographer and everyone hides from you). I’ve done the side-by-side comparisons and it is amazing how close in quality the two lenses are for the “average” shot at f5.6. Your photos showed this well. But I submit this for your consideration: There is an old saying that you shouldn’t take a picture, you should make a picture. I think the 16-55 lens has a lot more options for the person who wants to “make” a picture. I’m lucky to be able to afford both. For someone on a budget, they can’t go wrong with the 18-55. For someone who shoots “auto” or close to it, the 18-55 will work very well. For the person who wants more options for creativity and does like the extra sharpness afforded by the 16-55, it is a better lens.
So much money and time spent on equipment and lenses that offer tiny improvements. We should all be more focused on using our own abilities to improve our photography, not let technology do it for us!
I finally found your channel again. I lost it after years. I still love your practical approach to things. People seem to forget what it's all about. Endless discussions about gear.
You are so right in what you say Mike, I shoot events for a local newspaper and at all of the events I photograph I am along side newspaper photographers with Nikon D5 cameras with very expensive lenses. I however use a Nikon D300 and a D300s usually with an 18-200mm lens. When the photographs are published in our respective publications you would be hard pressed to differentiate between the cameras that took the image.
Well, Bob, I think sometimes it's about "Mine is bigger than yours" from one photographer to another, just like cars and boats and houses :). I'm always thinking, if they need that for their confidence, let them do :).
Awesome, thank you Abdul. I'm running a weekly photo competitiongroup during Lockdown. almost 3000 photographers of all levels having a great time and supporting each other. I think you'll love it. Link below explains everything... MIKE www.photographycourses.biz/photography-locked-down
Love your stuff Mike, mostly because your 'local' exploits are in areas I recognise. I live on the Isle of Wight. Before I retired I was a sign maker and, on this video, you are sitting outside a Lymington Harbour Coffee Shop where the blue signs behind you (and others in Quay Street) were done by me !!!!!! Thanks for the belated ad.................
Well, Thanks! You are by no means the first person to suggest that kit lenses can be "just as good", but your video is the first truly convincing demonstration of the claim that I have come across. Sure, it would be great to have first rate low light capability, but I wouldn't use it that often, I'd struggle to fund it and I'd hate to carry it all everywhere. Horses for courses they used to say. I would like to ask about your choice of tripod. I have actually had one of these for many years but ended up never taking it anywhere because it was too heavy/bulky. Oh, Happy New Year!
Mike: this video is a good example of why I have so much appreciated your videos. You apply a common sense filter to photography and hardware. I have recommended your videos to many people..with the idea of trying to keep them from getting side tracked with irrelevancies and enjoy the process (not the pixel count) Since I am on a budget I was forced to shoot older lens and cameras... and have come to appreciate how well they can perform. (one of my favorite combinations is a d300 with the older 75 to 150E lens... an amazing lens for as little as 50 bucks on ebay) One of my favorite episodes is when you ripped your pants and did the post it note after the fact. You are one of us.
Mike: Thank you so much for providing a comprehensive channel that is both informative and easy to understand for beginners like myself. Out of all the photography channels on RUclips that i have viewed, yours is easily head and shoulders above the rest. Thank you again for your wonderful videos and unique teaching style. Much love from Canada.
Thank you Legend 115. I'm delighted they're helping. Please take a look on my website (link below) where all the videos on RUclips are searchable by category and skill level and all have an accompanying free article with more info too. Some say it's easier to find what you need there rather than YT. If you sign up for my newsletter, I'll let you know the instant there's a new one and send you a weekly email where we'll revisit tips and techniques to encourage you to keep practicing. - MIKE :-) www.photographycourses.biz/videos
One of your best educational videos not only about photography but about being a better consumer! Save money or spend it in real knowledge not just more equipment. Epic!
another awesome video Mike..every time that I see a vid of this type from you, I settle down and quit looking at the newest, greatest gear out there..it is inspiring to see a pro creating top notch photos with (supposedly) low end equipment...it gives us hope...thanks again !
How come your are so awesome... I just love the way your teach photography...especially composition videos. You let us know the whole situation and then help us get the right composition. Thanks a lot for your videos. Your videos are Blessing for any budding photographer. I'm from India and I'm proud to be in the same time and world where your are teaching. I dont have words to explain my gratitude.
Great videos! What tripod is that you are using? It looks really strong. To me there is nothing in those photos that would justify the 1500 price compared to the 18-55.
Thanks Richard. It's a Benbo tripod, sorry I can't remember what model because I bought it about 24 years ago and the label's worn right off. The head's a super strong manfrotto, sadly discontinued now. ... MIKE
I am not too new to photography but new to DSLRs. After watching tons of videos about lenses on RUclips I recently got a used Canon EF-S 18mm-135mm to go with my brand new Canon Rebel SL2. It is flexible enough zoom range and give me the shots I need. Also great for video work. Long story short I don't see a huge need for expensive lenses and I absolutely agree with your comments about newer vs. older lenses. You make most useful videos about teaching photography. Thank you!
Mike, I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts. I love using older glass, Helios, Jupiter, Fujinon, Chinon, Carl Zeiss etc,, The prime lenses of older M42/PK/Nik F variants can produce fantastic images, with great clarity and sharpness. The best part here is the cost, you can buy 4 or 5 decent vintage lenses, plus the required adaptor, for the cost of 1 new kit lens price.
The 18-55 is F/2.8/4 not F/2.8/5.6 as mentioned in the video. The biggest advantage for me of the 16-55 is the extra 2mm on the wide end, doesn't sound much but it's amazing how much more you can capture. Just for reference though, I'd take the 18-55 because of price/performance is as good if not better than that of the 16-55.
100% Agree Mike. The 18-55 is the one I would have as it would suit my needs completely. I don't need the water resistance or 2.8 throughout. Great video as per usual Mike. Your effort is as always very much appreciated.
Thank you for posting this. I, myself, am a fan of "kit" lenses for exactly the same reasons. I know people who are so caught up into getting the "next best thing," that they forget to ask themselves "why?" I completely agree that it's better to save that money and use it to learn something new or different about your photography.
I was convinced my 28 70 kit lens was fine until i replaced it with a 24 70 carl zeis one. The difference is incredible. Over sharp lenses , ? Ha you my freind are having a laugh .
Great comparison Mike...👍 In your opinion is it worth to invest in 50mm F2.8 prime lens for food photography, or 18-55mm can do the trick with some practice..?
hi Vivek Bhagwan Patil , 50mm prime is a worth investment, but invest on yourself first, know your camera and maximize on what it can do using your creative juice - Melissa pp Mike
Loved the video Mike, I find the the Fujifilm 18-55 OIS lens a really good performer. What it DR setting did you use? was that on Auto as well?. cheers Ian.
Mike- Great video-- I think the better argument here is not that the expensive lens is too sharp is that the cheaper lens takes as good a picture as the expensive lens. The sharpness detail you are talking about does not really show on the video. Thanks for all of the content you put out.
Mike you are my Hero. I never really thought about an image being too sharp but you are totally right, The sharp flat screens you speak of also hurt my eyes and now I know why, it's not natural. I will be taking a closer look at my kit using your less is more insight. Thank you Mike.
Would you consider doing the test with RAW rather than jpeg exposures. I was wondering if the contrast differences were related to the camera software compression rather than the lenses.
I actually shot jpg and raw when I did the test but they looked the same. So I thought better keep it simple and just do basic jpegs on same picture control settings... MIKE
I always look forward to any new videos from you Mike..of course I've watched your other ones over and over..you were my first "teacher" last year when I got back into photography..every time that I get an itch to buy new equipment, I just watch your videos when you use our kit lens and think "if it's good enough for Mike, I think I'm ok with what I have"..thanks for continuing to save me $ !
Top marks, Mike, because it's refreshing to see an honest review about this as there are so many that push the expensive lenses and forget that the results are often artificial. If a photo can tell a story, has a pleasing composition that leads the eye and lighting that makes it feel alive almost 3D you have a winner.
Mike, do you feel the same way about nature/landscape photography? I personally really like the high detail sharpness of 4k when I'm watching something like Planet Earth II, or looking at a close up photo a professional nature photographer has taken.
Hi Paul. Yes I feel this way about all imagery. Hate super HD TVs and lenses. A lot of top end photographers and film makers use old lenses to avoid it.. MIKE
Thanks mike, I’m a beginner photographer and I’m glad I subscribed to your channel because you have tons of knowledge and experience in photography. I have a Nikon D5500 with Nikon DX VR 1:3.5-5.6 18mm-55mm Wide Angle kit lens. Is this good for Real Estate photography? Or which one would you recommend ? Thanks
Thanks Bobi. Depends on the property. If it's a small space then a shorter lens (10mm) will open up the space more, make it look bigger - but you are more likely to see wall to wall. However if you're shooting at the other end of the market - say a long tree lined driveway with beautiful house at the end - I'd go for a loner lens, which could be anything from 55mm to 200mm depending on how long the driveway is. Sorry I can't give you a clear cut answer. Photography is a fluid thing. How you want the image to look will tell you what focal length and other settings to apply. So step one is to learn what they all do to the look and feel of an image. I can unravel all that for you in my 4 week online 'Masterclass' course. Try a sample and see what you think... MIKE 🙏👍😊 www.photographycourses.biz/courses/photography-masterclass
Mike, One thing I noticed when you were showing the images on LR, is that they had different histograms. The colors on the kit lens seemed more pronounced then on the more expensive lens. The curves for each color looked different between the two. I think it is the color profile that is looking different to you. But at the very least it gives a quantifiable way to compare the two images.
Kit is important, and finding the right kit is like finding that elusive great shot. Which is why we love photography. "Everything is effected by you" , is coming to all my shoots now great lesson!
Some good points, but I think that light transmission in a lens can be important to look at (and not just aperture). If the lens is meant to be used for low light photography it might be pretty important, since cranking up the ISO might end up ruining the detail. Light transmission is normally a lot higher in primes, and this makes them a good choice in those situations (in my opinion).
boss, I am shooting MIKE-FLAT. I love it. Often I am shooting at night in a dark place so it is not very difficult to check for sharpness. But I was out and about with my lovely Mama yesterday where it was a sunny and sometimes I had trouble checking for sharpness. Quickly wanted to ask exactly how sharp you set the sharpness on your little Fuji, or whatever camera you may be using? because while my eyes are still excellent quality at this point in my lifespan, and I can just about make out what the LCD is telling me when I zoom in to check for sharpness in all the mega pixels one can achieve handheld during the daytime at 100iso as apposed to the meatball sized ones I check shooting handheld at night with iso running anywhere from 3200-51,000. What do I do? jack up the sharpness a tad for daytime. Or perhaps i set it lower by accident.
Hey iain. I leave it on the default setting which I believe is halfway up the slider in the menu. Any additional sharpening I do in Lr when developing the raw to an image file. So long as the focus is soft on and there's no movement it'll be sharp. But if not there's no way to sharpen an already soft picture because of these things... MIKE :-)
awesome. okay, MIKE-FLAT is below the default settings, but the images are easy to sharpen later in Lr. I will bump them a up a little closer to the middle if needed. Thanks!
Through the experience of learning photography, I've grown to love my Pentax Q system 23-70mm kit zoom the most, even though I own all the lenses in the system and it is the cheapest of the 4 autofocus lenses, and the one that gets the least love (although Larry Becker at B&H liked it, too). This video validates my opinion, and lets me know I'm not a (complete) know-nothing.
I like the energy in all of your videos. So much to learn. As far as changing lenses is concerned, I bought myself a cheap ebay lens-flipper. Made my life so much easier.
Hi Mike, I just picked up the Canon SL2 and it came with 3 lenses: EFS 18-55, 50mm, and EF 70-300mm. I'm new to the SLR world but noticed that I have some camera shake with the zoom lens. My question is would I be wasting money ($400) on purchasing the SIGMA 75-300mm that has Image Stabilization which the Canon doesn't? I realize that I can adjust shutter speed and such to help avoid the shake factor, but it just seems to have a lens on-the-fly so to speak could be beneficial. Thank you for your educational and entertaining videos. If any of your fans would like to provide comments, I'd certainly appreciate them.
Hi Walter. IS can help, it depends on the lens camera combination how much though. Plus other factors like how you hold the camera, is it windy, is the strap blowing in the wind tugging the camera.... The longer the lens the bigger the problem. Faster shutter speed is the easiest way to deal with it... Sorry, not much help with that one... MIKE
Mike do you think the Fujifilm XT-20 with the 18-55 is a good travel camera as i want something a bit smaller than my K3 when on holiday ect but will the two different systems be a bit confusing?
can't say for sure Stigg - never used one but Fuji make awesome cameras so don't see why not. I guess like anything new and different it'll be a bit confusing at first as you learn the fuji's controls, but they are exactly the same on any camera so you should be fine after a while... MIKE
I love your modesty and how real you come across on the subject. While we all know the perks of high end gear, lenses, etc, we all forget that it is the photo that ultimately wins. Same things with instruments where you can get for example a great drummer to play the hell out of a cheap drum kit.
Hello Mike, great video. please edit them in silkypix software and you will appreciate the f2.8 lens. LR and PS will not give you a good judgement of the two lenses. Thank you.
Hi Mike, hope you'll read my comment. I'm a beginner photographer who loves taking pictures as a hobby and probably pursue it as a career one day. I just want to ask, should i buy cheap lenses like Yongnuo brands or save up to buy the better ones?
Hi z Scariot. Delighted to read your comment and hope I can help. As a beginner, I suggest you learn with what you can afford or have right now, because the difference in image quality won't be very important at this stage. The thing to remember is that lenses, cameras and kit have NO impact on how good your photography is. That depends on your mastery of making the camera do what you want it to - so you can concentrate on light, composition, previsualising, knowing where to stand and when to click. These last are the things that make images interesting, not the kit you use. When you've mastered your camera controls and photography skills you'll know if you want to make a career out of it and then, as money comes in you can invest in better quality equipment. I can certainly help you on the learning curve with my beginners course which will explain and demonstrate what you need, in the correct order one step at a time. I've put a link below where you can find out more and try a sample... MIKE www.photographycourses.biz/ubc
Mike Browne WOW!! Thank you so much for that very inspiring reply! 💖💖 SUBSCRIBED! 😊😊👍 I will keep taking pictures using what i have for now and hopefully one day, i could show you my own masterpiece! 😊
I wish I’d watched this BEFORE my husband and I spent way too much money on a couple of lenses!!! I asked for some advice from a photographer on Facebook, and now I feel as though he was really a “photographer snob.” On the other hand, I met another wonderful photographer who has done loads of beautiful work and has encouraged me to buy what works best for me and makes me happy. I have a very nice macro lens that has a wide aperture, but for everyday fun and versatility, I bought a zoom lens. Also, I’ve looked back at old photos using a “kit” lens, and I have many great shots. But, as you point out, learning about light, composition, and practicing have much more value than buying the latest and greatest!
I'm absolutely with you about the 18-55mm kit lens. I switched from Nikon (D800 with 24-70/2.8) to Fuji (X-T2 with 18-55mm) and I did that because of the size and weight of the gear. Now I'm carrying about 800g instead of 2 kg of weight and I really don't see a lot of difference in my shots. I decided to buy the 18-55mm after you recommended it in one of your videos. Btw have a great and healthy new year and take care :).
Mike please enlighten me. Is the 18-55 good for landscape and portrait? What if we want to also capture pictures in darker situations eg sunset and astro? In such case will the 16-55 be better off just to be in the safe side?
hi Flora, YES 18-55 is good for both landscape and portrait, 18mm is wide focal so its good for landscape, 55 is medium range focal good for portrait, if you want to capture dark situations, use tripod like sunset and astro, 16-55 is not so much of difference really - Melissa pp Mike www.photographycourses.biz/courses/understanding-camera-lenses
Mike as always great video and I think it's appropriate for my question. I have an up coming trip to the Normandy coast and northern part of France. I have a Nikon D7000 with the standard assortment of lenses. Recently I purchased a Nikon 18 - 200 lens. I was wondering in your wisdom should this one lens suffice? The majority of shots I plan on taking will be landscape type shots with the odd portait of my wife and maybe some village market shots/daily living ones as well. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks Randall
Hi, this lens will suffice, it's perfect for taking candid photos for streeet photography, portraits, using the 18mm side of it is perfect for landscapes and photojournalism style photos - Melissa pp Mike
I bought my X-T20 with 16-50 f3.5-5.6 kit lens. Its a slower lens no doubt, but considering good lighting condition I sometimes wonder how it's images will look in comparison to the 18-55 kit lens. It being an XC lens and all plasticky and slower while 18-55 is an XF. Does that affect the image quality?
It probably does affect image quality Amartya - but I doubt it's noticable unless you need massive cropping or enlargement or are pixel peeping. My buddy Simon Taplin buys old cheap manual lenses for his canon 5d because he prefers the gentler, softer look. Now, many will scream that the image quality is lower - but what do they mean by lower? Do they mean less sharp? Everyone's become addicted to over sharpened nasty false looking images that are completely un-natural looking in my opinion. Many world class film makers use old lenses for the same reason. By the way, Simon is a wold class photographer comissioned by Getty Images. His clients include Singapore Airlines, Heinekin, Mastercard, Nokia and ironically - Canon... MIKE :-)
@@MikeBrowne it's an inner conflict of mine actually. I began photography with a single goal of traveling to places and keeping good memories. Lately there's this desire of getting 'likes' in fb, insta, 500px etc. And super-sharp, unnatural images are the most liked ones these days. Personally I focus more on capturing a moment rather than worrying abt bokeh n stuffs. But often my 16-50 produces very soft corners in images which I hate. Would love to have the 16-55 but such a heavy lens wouldn't be ideal, i think, for carrying around for miles on foot. And I don't think it'll be prudent to spend again for the 18-55 even though it's more than just a kit lens. So sticking with 16-50 for now :)
great video as always mike. as an amature photographer i would be the first to admit that i have in the past been a little hung up about sharp images and equipment but just recently i have been using my 18.55 kit lens and found very little difference in image quality between 18.55mm kit lens and an expensive 17 40mm canon L lens. so your video mike will help me to get into the mind set of more images less aquipment better composition. thanks mike regards ray
Thank you for this video Mike! The kit you use is only a tool to create a vision. As long as you can m communicate the vision, who cares what equipment you use! Cheers!
Mike thank you for a great tutorial , I would love to know what what camera and lens your using for your video I love the detail . Please let me know thanks you mike....
Mike Browne funny thing is that I was on the fence about a lens I had recently purchased. I had spent a good bit of money but was not feeling 100% sold on it. It was a really good 24-70. After watching your video I went back to my kit lens and started working with it and sent the recently purchased 24-70 back. For now I didn’t really need it. We’ll see what the future holds. Thanks for your advice mike.
I have APS-C DSLR with 55-200 lens, want to buy Full frame 85 F/1.8 lens but when attached to my APS-C DSLR it will give me field of view similar 127.5 mm of Full frame. Now to know how much working space is required should I 1st try out with my 55-200 set at 85 mm or 120 mm. I am not after bokeh but better IQ & subject compression, since my 55-200 lens version is doesnt have sharpness I want.
Sorry Amit not my specialty working out crop factors etc. If your space is limited and you need to know distance for a specific working space, guess you'll need to work out what equivalent FL you'll have with crop sensor and FF lens and try it on your zoom... MIKE
Totally agree Mike, One of my favourite lenses is my 28-155 kit lens (for Pentax). Its a brute of a lens, super quick to focus, with a clutch, so I can override the auto if I want with a quick pull back. Also its WR, so when I kick my tripod over and it goes in the Thames its fine, or sill beer on it as I've done a few times, also I shoot street and prefer longer DOF so I don't need the "pro wide apature" f6.3 this bad boy is a beast and it was only £45 second hand. I also have loads of old school manual glass ecause like you say, it just feels right to the eye
Mike, thanks for the information. I like the kit lens a lot. Instead of replacing it I bought the Mitakon 35mm 0.95. mark2. This one makes a lot of a difference to me. Of course it has no AF but the quality of the lens and the build quality is great. For people that are used to manual focusing this a much better choice for their money. It is very sharp, affordable and a very good lens for portrets.
Hi Mike you brought out something very important that is more expensive lenses doesn’t mean better pictures. Excellent video Mike keep it up. Wish I was in the UK so that we could meet.... may be some day ... Cheers
Nice video as usual. I've got a question according to this video. I'm a hobbyist photographer and I'm planning to add another lens to my "kit" and I'd like to know your opinion about which lens would perform better. The 24-70mm 2.8 or the 70-200mm 2.8. I am a Nikon Guy and have several cameras and either of those lenses would be for the D800E. What lens do you think is the most convenient? I do almost any kind of photography but my focus is portraits. Thanks for your answer.
Thanks Goŋz Koronado. I have both the lenses you asked about and they are both equally good. So the only difference is which focal length rage do you prefer for you main genre of portraits? I shoot all sorts and have both so the whole 24 -200mm range is covered... MIKE
Hi Mike, i am an enthusiast / hobbyist and also have the XT1 with the 18-55, i love this camera and with the (WYSIWYG) has helped me move on from shooting in Auto Mode. As to your video i was uplifted with your comparison test, ie, how much we can save on lenses, you are the first pro photographer, and i watch many on youtube to mention the lens sharpness issue !!, to be truthful both lense images looked pretty much the same to me, but my eyes are several decades old now !!. Also i have become interested in close up photography but fuji prime lenses are quite steep pricewise for me, so i bought the metabones fuji/nikon adapter and bought old Ai - S Nikon 24mm, 50mm and 105mm micro lenses, with a 52.5mm macro tube, all on ebay in great condition ( all manual lenses, but that's not a problem as i will be shooting closeup in manual ). With the the 105 & tube i can get a 1:1 ratio, all this for about half the price of the fuji 60mm macro, excuse me for going on, but a big thank you for all your great informative videos.
You know what: That's what I'm doing right now. I'm saving up for a trip to Africa with my daughter. For basically every expense that I might make, I compare how long I could travel for that money. A fancy lens could easily cost me weeks of traveling. Sometimes, we just need some perspective.
I wish I could mash the like button 100 times, I couldn't agree more about the Fuji glass. The 18-55 and 55-200 are just amazing period, especially for their size. I was always a die hard canon fan because of their color rendering, never liked the nikon files but once I switched to fuji I was really amazed and the glass you get for the money is incredible and the size and weight is a major bonus!
I recently (2-3 months ago) upgraded to a constant f/2.8 zoom from a lighter constant f/4 lens. I like the old one, it is light, has excellent image quality, except at the wide end the corners were unappealing. The new one is excellent but much more heavier, gives me extra light and the corners are much nicer looking, even though the f/4 had a sharper image all-around. Plus it has WR which for me a welcome feature. I will stay with the heavier f/2.8 but still keep the old f/4 around just for a lighter travel kit. As far as sharpness goes, the center is crazy sharp on the new lens as well as on the old one, but the new one has a nicer, more smooth falloff in sharpness to the corners and nice smooth boke. It is a very nice lens for portraits and stopped down it is sharp throughout the frame with good depth and a touch of "dreaminess". I think I found the right lens for my usual shooting style. Happy New Year!
Hello Mike, I really enjoyed this video and I totally agree. The discussions in forums or groups on Facebook about the high end lenses are going ridiculous. It's almost a competion who has the biggest, most expensive lens. Sometimes I can't see the point of getting all these lenses. But here a question... which lens you would suggest for wildlife and airplane photography? I love shooting birds, airplanes (living very close to a RAF base) and dolphins (close to a beach as well). I was thinking about a Sigma 150-600mm, I'm using a Canon EOS 70D and 1200D.
Thanks sc29607. In my experience wildlfife is one area where you probably will need to invest some money in a f2.8 so you have that extra stop of shutter speed which will help you avoid camera shake at long focal lengths, which could be a problem especially for wildlife unless you've got tons of light. 600mm sounds like a good focal length. I had a Sigma f5-6.3 150-500 a few years ago and in my opinion it wasn't great for reasons mentioned about aperture / speed and camera shake. On my super heavy Manfrotto ART 058 tripod it was still soft at full zoom - even at faster speeds in strong light. It may have needed servicing and I've never used a 150-600. Suggest you check some reviews or better still see if you can borrow / try one first... Hope this helped... MIKE
Feel the same re 'up-grading' my Fuji XT-1 to the XT-2 - for some this may be necessary but not for me and what I do - also, how the heck do you find out what your equipment is capable of if you continually buy new?
Love your comment about being a photographer and stop worrying about your kit. It has been such a stumbling block. That said, If it comes to purchasing a 24mm f/2.8 lens and a 24mm f/1.4, I’ll gladly purchase the one with the wider aperture, all other factors being equal.
When i moved to Fuji thought i needed the 16-55 but soon realised how good this kit one is, a previous video you did helped me with the decision when you had to buy the 16-55. Interesting view point about over sharpness. I also love using my old Olympus primes on the XT-2. Stephen
Thanks for another great video Mike. It would also be nice to have a little comparison section here on the 2.8 at the longer focal length vs the smaller lens at 5.6 (it's smallest f stop) for the same shot, show a bit what the extra money gets.
Hi Mike. Thanks for this video. I have the fuji 'kit' lens and think it's great. I do think some you tubers feed into the belief that a 2.8 lens is a must have. It may be for some uses. I always thought that lens rarely perform best wide open so why worry?
A constant aperture is handy to have, especially if you shoot manual. It allows you to zoom in without having to change exposure. There's also more to a wider aperture than just the wide open performance, it lets you stop down 2 stops, giving you better IQ, and contrast, as well as less vignetting at the same exposure.
I guess it depends on the 2.8. I own the brilliant 50-140 f/2.8. Even at 2/8 it is amazingly sharp. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I shoot mainly in full manual and will not shoot with any zoom that is not a constant aperture. Gives me one less thing to worry about.
18-55 the right choice ; for faster aperture & shutter speeds, a fast prime can be used when situation demands, and no need to carry the heavy weight 16-55 ; Thanks, superb video
I have been reminding myself not to become a sheep gazing on this super duper sharpness wave. Totally agree I tend to work on my composition and not always want that crazy unreal sharpness, particularly when I m shooting videos. Thanks for keeping us all sane.
Hi Mike, can you please post FULL JPEGs for both? I would like to compare the 3D pop (micro-contrast) from the 16-55 WR F2, I own the 18-55, it is a good lens, but I was not impressed.
We seem to be flooded with marketing strategies to coax us into spending more money. Some of the better photos I have taken is with my D300 and 18-55 kit lens, paid only £225 and came with a Lowepro sling bag, new speed light and spare batteries. I do a lot of concert photography therefore I also have a Nikon D750 with Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2,8 and old Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 push pull lens and Nikon 50mm prime f1.8. I am very pleased with my lens purchases and the most I paid for one of these lenses was £385. I could never afford to spend £1000's on a lens and never felt the need to as what I have does exactly what I need them to do. Another brilliant video Mike!.
Just watched this video and may I add that back in the ( swinging ) 60's we used to use soft focus filters or a stocking over the lens to soften the image especially when taking portraiture, now its all about how sharp is the lens. Also what was in vogue at the time was "grain" the more grainy you could make your photos the cooler they where. I think trends and traits just come and go BUT good photos will stand the test of time and last forever
Hi I have a bottom of the range Sony A58; with sigma and Tamron lenses, they are all terrific, the only thing I want as an improvement is the Sony eye autofocus feature, apart from that I’d rather have a couple of decent bags so that I can carry my kit around comfortably.
I noticed you said you process your photos in Lightroom, so do I! I process in Lightroom 2 then send it to Photoshop CS3, was told to pick a program and stick with it...Julian
Here's a rookie question. Will the Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED work with my D7200 DX format? I'm looking for a decent lens of this range and I found this one. Are there any other choices if this is not compatable?
Hi @Mike Gervais. If it's a full frame lens on a DX body it will work. The effect will be to make it appear longer than the stated 500mm. Hope that helps... MIKE
@@MikeBrowne thank you Mike appreciate your response just wasn't sure if the lens would vignette on me at all. Also I don't know if this applies, but if it would dimonish the Boca as well. But I'm just glad to hear that the lens is compatible and certainly is my next investment as I step away from the D3200 and graduate to the D7200
Thanks David... Good question. Partly complacency I guess. I've never lost a camera before! Plus I know I could likely borrow or buy something there if I really needed to. When running workshops I rarely shoot anything for myself. I'm there to teach not shoot - other than to demonstrate something to participants and I generally use their camera to do it so there's no ambiguity that my camera can do something theirs can't... MIKE
Very interesting Mike I started with Nikon 24-70 2.8 and finding it impossible to carry work on the principle that unless lens is really long should be less than half a kilo I have gone to a 28-70 3.5-4’5 Nikon and a 24-85 3.5 - my skills get me the photograph but hope to do your 7 element course to develop that structured approach I have never had
Good comparison/review, but it's worth pointing out your price examples were way out and a bit misleading - there is only £280 difference between the two lenses new - £900 vs £620 (WEX uk)
Mike , you are the camera producers nightmare! You have the knowledge and understanding that ridicules the entire regime of " you need to buy this , upgrade now!!!! Or your photos will be shit ! " great , i applaud you .
What he just said!...Julian
I agree too! Down to earth common sense. That's our Mike!
Mike, Thanks for making us a better consumer. Appreciate your effort.
Mike, since you have paid for it anyway, it might be wiser to just keep the more expensive lens as a backup lens for your out of town workshops, just in case something happens to your cheaper lens again some day? Then you will never be without a lens again in case of another mishap.
Nice video, good message. I think that the "soft focus effect" in the portrait with the 16-55 WR versus a sharper result with the 18-55 may have been caused by the 1/40 shutter speed, handheld, combined with the lack of OIS in that lens.
Love what you do for photographers and the support your classes provide. I have always felt that the camera is only a tool...that the real image is created in your mind and your minds eye. Thanks for all you do. I watch you videos all the time. I have been an active photographer for over 40 years.I appreciate you truthfulness.
The 18-55 “kit” lens has been lauded by many as a superior lens. Fuji X-mount shooters are really lucky to have this option for great photo quality. I bought an X-T2 and later traded it for an X-T3. I bought the body only and purchased the 16-55. I have some other lenses but fell so much in love with the 16-55 that I rarely take it off. “Too sharp” has never crossed my mind. Having a fixed aperture with actual markings on the lens is a wonderful thing.
I recently bought an X-E3 as a “walking around” camera. I bought it with the 18-55 lens. That combination is fantastic for going out and about and not carrying a lot of weight. It’s really good for “street photography” (or any photography where you don’t want to look like a professional photographer and everyone hides from you).
I’ve done the side-by-side comparisons and it is amazing how close in quality the two lenses are for the “average” shot at f5.6. Your photos showed this well. But I submit this for your consideration: There is an old saying that you shouldn’t take a picture, you should make a picture. I think the 16-55 lens has a lot more options for the person who wants to “make” a picture.
I’m lucky to be able to afford both. For someone on a budget, they can’t go wrong with the 18-55. For someone who shoots “auto” or close to it, the 18-55 will work very well. For the person who wants more options for creativity and does like the extra sharpness afforded by the 16-55, it is a better lens.
So much money and time spent on equipment and lenses that offer tiny improvements. We should all be more focused on using our own abilities to improve our photography, not let technology do it for us!
YES - thanks Overseer 13 - MIKE :-)
I finally found your channel again. I lost it after years.
I still love your practical approach to things. People seem to forget what it's all about.
Endless discussions about gear.
You are so right in what you say Mike, I shoot events for a local newspaper and at all of the events I photograph I am along side newspaper photographers with Nikon D5 cameras with very expensive lenses. I however use a Nikon D300 and a D300s usually with an 18-200mm lens. When the photographs are published in our respective publications you would be hard pressed to differentiate between the cameras that took the image.
Thanks Bob Edwards. That sounds about right... MIKE :-)
Well, Bob, I think sometimes it's about "Mine is bigger than yours" from one photographer to another, just like cars and boats and houses :). I'm always thinking, if they need that for their confidence, let them do :).
or nuke buttons... ;-)
What a refreshing photography channel. This is the third video Ive watched and I have loved them all. Subscribed.
Awesome, thank you Abdul. I'm running a weekly photo competitiongroup during Lockdown. almost 3000 photographers of all levels having a great time and supporting each other. I think you'll love it. Link below explains everything... MIKE
www.photographycourses.biz/photography-locked-down
Love your stuff Mike, mostly because your 'local' exploits are in areas I recognise. I live on the Isle of Wight.
Before I retired I was a sign maker and, on this video, you are sitting outside a Lymington Harbour Coffee Shop where the blue signs behind you (and others in Quay Street) were done by me !!!!!!
Thanks for the belated ad.................
Thanks - and you're welcome Dave 🙏😊
Thank you Mike, I am so glad I take your advice!
Well, Thanks! You are by no means the first person to suggest that kit lenses can be "just as good", but your video is the first truly convincing demonstration of the claim that I have come across. Sure, it would be great to have first rate low light capability, but I wouldn't use it that often, I'd struggle to fund it and I'd hate to carry it all everywhere. Horses for courses they used to say.
I would like to ask about your choice of tripod. I have actually had one of these for many years but ended up never taking it anywhere because it was too heavy/bulky.
Oh, Happy New Year!
Thanks David and Happy New Year to you too. Yep that old Benbo has been working hard for me for over 20 years and still going strong... MIKE :-)
Mike: this video is a good example of why I have so much appreciated your videos. You apply a common sense filter to photography and hardware. I have recommended your videos to many people..with the idea of trying to keep them from getting side tracked with irrelevancies and enjoy the process (not the pixel count) Since I am on a budget I was forced to shoot older lens and cameras... and have come to appreciate how well they can perform. (one of my favorite combinations is a d300 with the older 75 to 150E lens... an amazing lens for as little as 50 bucks on ebay) One of my favorite episodes is when you ripped your pants and did the post it note after the fact. You are one of us.
Thanks Gary. Yep I'm still good at ripping my pants, falling over in puddles, knocking stuff over... MIKE :-)
Mike: Thank you so much for providing a comprehensive channel that is both informative and easy to understand for beginners like myself. Out of all the photography channels on RUclips that i have viewed, yours is easily head and shoulders above the rest. Thank you again for your wonderful videos and unique teaching style. Much love from Canada.
Thank you Legend 115. I'm delighted they're helping. Please take a look on my website (link below) where all the videos on RUclips are searchable by category and skill level and all have an accompanying free article with more info too. Some say it's easier to find what you need there rather than YT. If you sign up for my newsletter, I'll let you know the instant there's a new one and send you a weekly email where we'll revisit tips and techniques to encourage you to keep practicing. - MIKE :-)
www.photographycourses.biz/videos
One of your best educational videos not only about photography but about being a better consumer! Save money or spend it in real knowledge not just more equipment. Epic!
thank you Reb C, please do share it too so we can make more - Melissa
another awesome video Mike..every time that I see a vid of this type from you, I settle down and quit looking at the newest, greatest gear out there..it is inspiring to see a pro creating top notch photos with (supposedly) low end equipment...it gives us hope...thanks again !
How come your are so awesome... I just love the way your teach photography...especially composition videos. You let us know the whole situation and then help us get the right composition. Thanks a lot for your videos. Your videos are Blessing for any budding photographer. I'm from India and I'm proud to be in the same time and world where your are teaching. I dont have words to explain my gratitude.
Thank you Harsh Vardhan Saboo - that's praise indeed ... MIKE :-)
Ditto
Great videos! What tripod is that you are using? It looks really strong. To me there is nothing in those photos that would justify the 1500 price compared to the 18-55.
Thanks Richard. It's a Benbo tripod, sorry I can't remember what model because I bought it about 24 years ago and the label's worn right off. The head's a super strong manfrotto, sadly discontinued now. ... MIKE
Thanks for the thoughtful comparison Mike. Makes the point very clearly that the kit is only a small part of the picture making process.
I am not too new to photography but new to DSLRs. After watching tons of videos about lenses on RUclips I recently got a used Canon EF-S 18mm-135mm to go with my brand new Canon Rebel SL2. It is flexible enough zoom range and give me the shots I need. Also great for video work.
Long story short I don't see a huge need for expensive lenses and I absolutely agree with your comments about newer vs. older lenses. You make most useful videos about teaching photography.
Thank you!
Thank you Soydan, indeed you are correct. - Melissa pp Mike :)
Mike, I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts. I love using older glass, Helios, Jupiter, Fujinon, Chinon, Carl Zeiss etc,, The prime lenses of older M42/PK/Nik F variants can produce fantastic images, with great clarity and sharpness. The best part here is the cost, you can buy 4 or 5 decent vintage lenses, plus the required adaptor, for the cost of 1 new kit lens price.
The 18-55 is F/2.8/4 not F/2.8/5.6 as mentioned in the video. The biggest advantage for me of the 16-55 is the extra 2mm on the wide end, doesn't sound much but it's amazing how much more you can capture. Just for reference though, I'd take the 18-55 because of price/performance is as good if not better than that of the 16-55.
Love your approach to photography and your personality, Mike. Great video, thanks for the perspective.
100% Agree Mike. The 18-55 is the one I would have as it would suit my needs completely. I don't need the water resistance or 2.8 throughout. Great video as per usual Mike. Your effort is as always very much appreciated.
Thanks again Jeff
Thank you for posting this. I, myself, am a fan of "kit" lenses for exactly the same reasons. I know people who are so caught up into getting the "next best thing," that they forget to ask themselves "why?" I completely agree that it's better to save that money and use it to learn something new or different about your photography.
Thanks Wooden Canoe Pictures - MIKE
I was convinced my 28 70 kit lens was fine until i replaced it with a 24 70 carl zeis one. The difference is incredible. Over sharp lenses , ? Ha you my freind are having a laugh .
Great comparison Mike...👍 In your opinion is it worth to invest in 50mm F2.8 prime lens for food photography, or 18-55mm can do the trick with some practice..?
hi Vivek Bhagwan Patil , 50mm prime is a worth investment, but invest on yourself first, know your camera and maximize on what it can do using your creative juice - Melissa pp Mike
Loved the video Mike, I find the the Fujifilm 18-55 OIS lens a really good performer. What it DR setting did you use? was that on Auto as well?. cheers Ian.
Mike- Great video-- I think the better argument here is not that the expensive lens is too sharp is that the cheaper lens takes as good a picture as the expensive lens. The sharpness detail you are talking about does not really show on the video. Thanks for all of the content you put out.
Hi Mike just starting out in proper picture taking. Glad found your channel and thank you for sharing
Good to here Dave, take a look here for more support www.photographycourses.biz/courses
You bring such a unique perspective, worth watching just for that
Thanks Christian, I appreciate your comment.
Mike you are my Hero. I never really thought about an image being too sharp but you are totally right, The sharp flat screens you speak of also hurt my eyes and now I know why, it's not natural. I will be taking a closer look at my kit using your less is more insight.
Thank you Mike.
thank you Drew :) -Melissa pp Mike
Would you consider doing the test with RAW rather than jpeg exposures. I was wondering if the contrast differences were related to the camera software compression rather than the lenses.
I actually shot jpg and raw when I did the test but they looked the same. So I thought better keep it simple and just do basic jpegs on same picture control settings... MIKE
I always look forward to any new videos from you Mike..of course I've watched your other ones over and over..you were my first "teacher" last year when I got back into photography..every time that I get an itch to buy new equipment, I just watch your videos when you use our kit lens and think "if it's good enough for Mike, I think I'm ok with what I have"..thanks for continuing to save me $ !
Top marks, Mike, because it's refreshing to see an honest review about this as there are so many that push the expensive lenses and forget that the results are often artificial. If a photo can tell a story, has a pleasing composition that leads the eye and lighting that makes it feel alive almost 3D you have a winner.
Mike, do you feel the same way about nature/landscape photography? I personally really like the high detail sharpness of 4k when I'm watching something like Planet Earth II, or looking at a close up photo a professional nature photographer has taken.
Hi Paul. Yes I feel this way about all imagery. Hate super HD TVs and lenses. A lot of top end photographers and film makers use old lenses to avoid it.. MIKE
Thanks mike, I’m a beginner photographer and I’m glad I subscribed to your channel because you have tons of knowledge and experience in photography. I have a Nikon D5500 with Nikon DX VR 1:3.5-5.6 18mm-55mm Wide Angle kit lens. Is this good for Real Estate photography? Or which one would you recommend ? Thanks
Thanks Bobi. Depends on the property. If it's a small space then a shorter lens (10mm) will open up the space more, make it look bigger - but you are more likely to see wall to wall. However if you're shooting at the other end of the market - say a long tree lined driveway with beautiful house at the end - I'd go for a loner lens, which could be anything from 55mm to 200mm depending on how long the driveway is. Sorry I can't give you a clear cut answer. Photography is a fluid thing. How you want the image to look will tell you what focal length and other settings to apply. So step one is to learn what they all do to the look and feel of an image. I can unravel all that for you in my 4 week online 'Masterclass' course. Try a sample and see what you think... MIKE 🙏👍😊
www.photographycourses.biz/courses/photography-masterclass
In all honesty for the price of the 16-55 2.8 you can get the 18-55 & 55-200! & the versatility goes up significantly!.
Agreed Stephen. - MIKE
Mike, One thing I noticed when you were showing the images on LR, is that they had different histograms. The colors on the kit lens seemed more pronounced then on the more expensive lens. The curves for each color looked different between the two. I think it is the color profile that is looking different to you. But at the very least it gives a quantifiable way to compare the two images.
Kit is important, and finding the right kit is like finding that elusive great shot. Which is why we love photography. "Everything is effected by you" , is coming to all my shoots now great lesson!
Mike, you are fantastic. A real pleasure to watch.
Thanks Evian.. MIKE
Some good points, but I think that light transmission in a lens can be important to look at (and not just aperture). If the lens is meant to be used for low light photography it might be pretty important, since cranking up the ISO might end up ruining the detail. Light transmission is normally a lot higher in primes, and this makes them a good choice in those situations (in my opinion).
Spot-on Mike!
I like your presentation style, no gimmicks, just straight forward info and content.
All the best for 2018
You too Colin - MIKE :-)
boss, I am shooting MIKE-FLAT. I love it.
Often I am shooting at night in a dark place so it is not very difficult to check for sharpness. But I was out and about with my lovely Mama yesterday where it was a sunny and sometimes I had trouble checking for sharpness. Quickly wanted to ask exactly how sharp you set the sharpness on your little Fuji, or whatever camera you may be using? because while my eyes are still excellent quality at this point in my lifespan, and I can just about make out what the LCD is telling me when I zoom in to check for sharpness in all the mega pixels one can achieve handheld during the daytime at 100iso as apposed to the meatball sized ones I check shooting handheld at night with iso running anywhere from 3200-51,000. What do I do? jack up the sharpness a tad for daytime. Or perhaps i set it lower by accident.
Hey iain. I leave it on the default setting which I believe is halfway up the slider in the menu. Any additional sharpening I do in Lr when developing the raw to an image file. So long as the focus is soft on and there's no movement it'll be sharp. But if not there's no way to sharpen an already soft picture because of these things... MIKE :-)
awesome. okay, MIKE-FLAT is below the default settings, but the images are easy to sharpen later in Lr. I will bump them a up a little closer to the middle if needed. Thanks!
Through the experience of learning photography, I've grown to love my Pentax Q system 23-70mm kit zoom the most, even though I own all the lenses in the system and it is the cheapest of the 4 autofocus lenses, and the one that gets the least love (although Larry Becker at B&H liked it, too). This video validates my opinion, and lets me know I'm not a (complete) know-nothing.
I like the energy in all of your videos. So much to learn. As far as changing lenses is concerned, I bought myself a cheap ebay lens-flipper. Made my life so much easier.
Hi Mike, I just picked up the Canon SL2 and it came with 3 lenses: EFS 18-55, 50mm, and EF 70-300mm. I'm new to the SLR world but noticed that I have some camera shake with the zoom lens. My question is would I be wasting money ($400) on purchasing the SIGMA 75-300mm that has Image Stabilization which the Canon doesn't? I realize that I can adjust shutter speed and such to help avoid the shake factor, but it just seems to have a lens on-the-fly so to speak could be beneficial. Thank you for your educational and entertaining videos. If any of your fans would like to provide comments, I'd certainly appreciate them.
Hi Walter. IS can help, it depends on the lens camera combination how much though. Plus other factors like how you hold the camera, is it windy, is the strap blowing in the wind tugging the camera.... The longer the lens the bigger the problem. Faster shutter speed is the easiest way to deal with it... Sorry, not much help with that one... MIKE
Mike do you think the Fujifilm XT-20 with the 18-55 is a good travel camera as i want something a bit smaller than my K3 when on holiday ect but will the two different systems be a bit confusing?
can't say for sure Stigg - never used one but Fuji make awesome cameras so don't see why not. I guess like anything new and different it'll be a bit confusing at first as you learn the fuji's controls, but they are exactly the same on any camera so you should be fine after a while... MIKE
I love your modesty and how real you come across on the subject. While we all know the perks of high end gear, lenses, etc, we all forget that it is the photo that ultimately wins. Same things with instruments where you can get for example a great drummer to play the hell out of a cheap drum kit.
thank you makemarker, really love your comment - Melissa pp Mike
Great video as always,Thanks Magnificent Mike!😍😍😍😍😍
I just recently discovered your RUclips channel... I have been enjoying watching your videos. You are extremely knowledgable
thank you kimberly! please do share our videos too so we can make more - Melissa pp Mike
Hello Mike, great video. please edit them in silkypix software and you will appreciate the f2.8 lens. LR and PS will not give you a good judgement of the two lenses. Thank you.
Image Stabilization on a lens is really useful . Specially as I do hand held videos too
Hi Mike, hope you'll read my comment.
I'm a beginner photographer who loves taking pictures as a hobby and probably pursue it as a career one day. I just want to ask, should i buy cheap lenses like Yongnuo brands or save up to buy the better ones?
Hi z Scariot. Delighted to read your comment and hope I can help. As a beginner, I suggest you learn with what you can afford or have right now, because the difference in image quality won't be very important at this stage. The thing to remember is that lenses, cameras and kit have NO impact on how good your photography is. That depends on your mastery of making the camera do what you want it to - so you can concentrate on light, composition, previsualising, knowing where to stand and when to click. These last are the things that make images interesting, not the kit you use. When you've mastered your camera controls and photography skills you'll know if you want to make a career out of it and then, as money comes in you can invest in better quality equipment.
I can certainly help you on the learning curve with my beginners course which will explain and demonstrate what you need, in the correct order one step at a time. I've put a link below where you can find out more and try a sample... MIKE
www.photographycourses.biz/ubc
Mike Browne WOW!! Thank you so much for that very inspiring reply! 💖💖
SUBSCRIBED! 😊😊👍
I will keep taking pictures using what i have for now and hopefully one day, i could show you my own masterpiece! 😊
I wish I’d watched this BEFORE my husband and I spent way too much money on a couple of lenses!!! I asked for some advice from a photographer on Facebook, and now I feel as though he was really a “photographer snob.” On the other hand, I met another wonderful photographer who has done loads of beautiful work and has encouraged me to buy what works best for me and makes me happy. I have a very nice macro lens that has a wide aperture, but for everyday fun and versatility, I bought a zoom lens. Also, I’ve looked back at old photos using a “kit” lens, and I have many great shots. But, as you point out, learning about light, composition, and practicing have much more value than buying the latest and greatest!
Yes sadly there are quite a lot of "“photographer snobs” about @Anne Harwood... MIKE
I quite like the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 lens when needed. I think you meant f/4.0 when zoomed out and not f/5.6.
Great video Mike, and I agree with what you say wholeheartedly......
I'm absolutely with you about the 18-55mm kit lens. I switched from Nikon (D800 with 24-70/2.8) to Fuji (X-T2 with 18-55mm) and I did that because of the size and weight of the gear. Now I'm carrying about 800g instead of 2 kg of weight and I really don't see a lot of difference in my shots. I decided to buy the 18-55mm after you recommended it in one of your videos. Btw have a great and healthy new year and take care :).
Thanks Michael - you too buddy - MIKE :-)
Mike please enlighten me. Is the 18-55 good for landscape and portrait? What if we want to also capture pictures in darker situations eg sunset and astro? In such case will the 16-55 be better off just to be in the safe side?
hi Flora, YES 18-55 is good for both landscape and portrait, 18mm is wide focal so its good for landscape, 55 is medium range focal good for portrait, if you want to capture dark situations, use tripod like sunset and astro, 16-55 is not so much of difference really - Melissa pp Mike www.photographycourses.biz/courses/understanding-camera-lenses
Mike as always great video and I think it's appropriate for my question. I have an up coming trip to the Normandy coast and northern part of France. I have a Nikon D7000 with the standard assortment of lenses. Recently I purchased a Nikon 18 - 200 lens. I was wondering in your wisdom should this one lens suffice? The majority of shots I plan on taking will be landscape type shots with the odd portait of my wife and maybe some village market shots/daily living ones as well. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Thanks Randall
Hi, this lens will suffice, it's perfect for taking candid photos for streeet photography, portraits, using the 18mm side of it is perfect for landscapes and photojournalism style photos - Melissa pp Mike
I bought my X-T20 with 16-50 f3.5-5.6 kit lens. Its a slower lens no doubt, but considering good lighting condition I sometimes wonder how it's images will look in comparison to the 18-55 kit lens. It being an XC lens and all plasticky and slower while 18-55 is an XF. Does that affect the image quality?
It probably does affect image quality Amartya - but I doubt it's noticable unless you need massive cropping or enlargement or are pixel peeping. My buddy Simon Taplin buys old cheap manual lenses for his canon 5d because he prefers the gentler, softer look. Now, many will scream that the image quality is lower - but what do they mean by lower? Do they mean less sharp? Everyone's become addicted to over sharpened nasty false looking images that are completely un-natural looking in my opinion. Many world class film makers use old lenses for the same reason. By the way, Simon is a wold class photographer comissioned by Getty Images. His clients include Singapore Airlines, Heinekin, Mastercard, Nokia and ironically - Canon... MIKE :-)
@@MikeBrowne it's an inner conflict of mine actually. I began photography with a single goal of traveling to places and keeping good memories. Lately there's this desire of getting 'likes' in fb, insta, 500px etc. And super-sharp, unnatural images are the most liked ones these days. Personally I focus more on capturing a moment rather than worrying abt bokeh n stuffs. But often my 16-50 produces very soft corners in images which I hate. Would love to have the 16-55 but such a heavy lens wouldn't be ideal, i think, for carrying around for miles on foot. And I don't think it'll be prudent to spend again for the 18-55 even though it's more than just a kit lens. So sticking with 16-50 for now :)
Mike! You're back! I've missed your videos!
Great informative video Mike.
Good to see that it's not all about the equipment.. it's about the person behind it!
Thanks Mike Crawshaw. Cameras don't take pictures - the person behind it does... MIKE
Will you be upgrading to the Fuji xt2 anytime soon Mike.
great video as always mike. as an amature photographer i would be the first to admit that i have in the past been a little
hung up about sharp images and equipment but just recently i have been using my 18.55 kit lens and found very little
difference in image quality between 18.55mm kit lens and an expensive 17 40mm canon L lens. so your video mike
will help me to get into the mind set of more images less aquipment better composition. thanks mike regards ray
Thanks Ray. "more images less equipment better composition" is a great mantra - MIKE :-)
Thank you for this video Mike! The kit you use is only a tool to create a vision. As long as you can m communicate the vision, who cares what equipment you use! Cheers!
"The kit you use is only a tool to create a vision" YES - MIKE
Mike thank you for a great tutorial , I would love to know what what camera and lens your using for your video I love the detail . Please let me know thanks you mike....
Thank you @Thoma Lavery. this one and most others are shot on a Sony PXW-X70. Link below... MIKE
pro.sony/en_GB/products/handheld-camcorders/pxw-x70
Great video mike. What about shooting mainly indoors in lower light. Is the 2.8 better?
As I said in the video TrueMusicMaking, the 18-55 has excellent stabilisation and the 16-55 doesn't so one pretty much cancels out the other ... MIKE
Mike Browne funny thing is that I was on the fence about a lens I had recently purchased. I had spent a good bit of money but was not feeling 100% sold on it. It was a really good 24-70. After watching your video I went back to my kit lens and started working with it and sent the recently purchased 24-70 back. For now I didn’t really need it. We’ll see what the future holds. Thanks for your advice mike.
Totally agree Mike,,,, well done sir,,, thanks again, Bob
I have APS-C DSLR with 55-200 lens, want to buy Full frame 85 F/1.8 lens but when attached to my APS-C DSLR it will give me field of view similar 127.5 mm of Full frame. Now to know how much working space is required should I 1st try out with my 55-200 set at 85 mm or 120 mm. I am not after bokeh but better IQ & subject compression, since my 55-200 lens version is doesnt have sharpness I want.
Sorry Amit not my specialty working out crop factors etc. If your space is limited and you need to know distance for a specific working space, guess you'll need to work out what equivalent FL you'll have with crop sensor and FF lens and try it on your zoom... MIKE
Thank you Mike Sir for fast reply.
Totally agree Mike, One of my favourite lenses is my 28-155 kit lens (for Pentax). Its a brute of a lens, super quick to focus, with a clutch, so I can override the auto if I want with a quick pull back. Also its WR, so when I kick my tripod over and it goes in the Thames its fine, or sill beer on it as I've done a few times, also I shoot street and prefer longer DOF so I don't need the "pro wide apature" f6.3 this bad boy is a beast and it was only £45 second hand. I also have loads of old school manual glass ecause like you say, it just feels right to the eye
Mike, thanks for the information.
I like the kit lens a lot. Instead of replacing it I bought the Mitakon 35mm 0.95. mark2.
This one makes a lot of a difference to me.
Of course it has no AF but the quality of the lens and the build quality is great.
For people that are used to manual focusing this a much better choice for their money.
It is very sharp, affordable and a very good lens for portrets.
thank you for the kind words joop- Melissa pp Mike
Hi Mike you brought out something very important that is more expensive lenses doesn’t mean better pictures. Excellent video Mike keep it up. Wish I was in the UK so that we could meet.... may be some day ... Cheers
Nice video as usual. I've got a question according to this video. I'm a hobbyist photographer and I'm planning to add another lens to my "kit" and I'd like to know your opinion about which lens would perform better. The 24-70mm 2.8 or the 70-200mm 2.8. I am a Nikon Guy and have several cameras and either of those lenses would be for the D800E. What lens do you think is the most convenient? I do almost any kind of photography but my focus is portraits. Thanks for your answer.
Thanks Goŋz Koronado. I have both the lenses you asked about and they are both equally good. So the only difference is which focal length rage do you prefer for you main genre of portraits? I shoot all sorts and have both so the whole 24 -200mm range is covered... MIKE
Great vid as always Mike, thanks.
Would the differents be bigger with a DSLR instead of a mirrorless camera?
Can't say Indy Pindy. I only have the crop sensor XT-1 to use them on... MIKE
Hi Mike, i am an enthusiast / hobbyist and also have the XT1 with the 18-55, i love this camera and with the (WYSIWYG) has helped me move on from shooting in Auto Mode. As to your video i was uplifted with your comparison test, ie, how much we can save on lenses, you are the first pro photographer, and i watch many on youtube to mention the lens sharpness issue !!, to be truthful both lense images looked pretty much the same to me, but my eyes are several decades old now !!. Also i have become interested in close up photography but fuji prime lenses are quite steep pricewise for me, so i bought the metabones fuji/nikon adapter and bought old Ai - S Nikon 24mm, 50mm and 105mm micro lenses, with a 52.5mm macro tube, all on ebay in great condition ( all manual lenses, but that's not a problem as i will be shooting closeup in manual ). With the the 105 & tube i can get a 1:1 ratio, all this for about half the price of the fuji 60mm macro, excuse me for going on, but a big thank you for all your great informative videos.
Thanks Peter... MIKE :-)
Mike, I need to make sure to watch your videos every time I'm contemplating buying new stuff. :-) Keep up the great work!
jbxplores spend the money you save on a road trip for photos.
You know what: That's what I'm doing right now. I'm saving up for a trip to Africa with my daughter. For basically every expense that I might make, I compare how long I could travel for that money. A fancy lens could easily cost me weeks of traveling. Sometimes, we just need some perspective.
I wish I could mash the like button 100 times, I couldn't agree more about the Fuji glass. The 18-55 and 55-200 are just amazing period, especially for their size. I was always a die hard canon fan because of their color rendering, never liked the nikon files but once I switched to fuji I was really amazed and the glass you get for the money is incredible and the size and weight is a major bonus!
I recently (2-3 months ago) upgraded to a constant f/2.8 zoom from a lighter constant f/4 lens. I like the old one, it is light, has excellent image quality, except at the wide end the corners were unappealing. The new one is excellent but much more heavier, gives me extra light and the corners are much nicer looking, even though the f/4 had a sharper image all-around. Plus it has WR which for me a welcome feature. I will stay with the heavier f/2.8 but still keep the old f/4 around just for a lighter travel kit.
As far as sharpness goes, the center is crazy sharp on the new lens as well as on the old one, but the new one has a nicer, more smooth falloff in sharpness to the corners and nice smooth boke. It is a very nice lens for portraits and stopped down it is sharp throughout the frame with good depth and a touch of "dreaminess". I think I found the right lens for my usual shooting style.
Happy New Year!
Hello Mike, I really enjoyed this video and I totally agree. The discussions in forums or groups on Facebook about the high end lenses are going ridiculous. It's almost a competion who has the biggest, most expensive lens. Sometimes I can't see the point of getting all these lenses. But here a question... which lens you would suggest for wildlife and airplane photography? I love shooting birds, airplanes (living very close to a RAF base) and dolphins (close to a beach as well). I was thinking about a Sigma 150-600mm, I'm using a Canon EOS 70D and 1200D.
Thanks sc29607. In my experience wildlfife is one area where you probably will need to invest some money in a f2.8 so you have that extra stop of shutter speed which will help you avoid camera shake at long focal lengths, which could be a problem especially for wildlife unless you've got tons of light. 600mm sounds like a good focal length. I had a Sigma f5-6.3 150-500 a few years ago and in my opinion it wasn't great for reasons mentioned about aperture / speed and camera shake. On my super heavy Manfrotto ART 058 tripod it was still soft at full zoom - even at faster speeds in strong light. It may have needed servicing and I've never used a 150-600. Suggest you check some reviews or better still see if you can borrow / try one first... Hope this helped... MIKE
God Bless you Mike, you are an excellent teacher.......full of life.....
Thanks again Dr. ShahZadah... MIKE
Mike, again thanks for the video, got your idea. However, I am still using my Nikon with cheapo 50mm f/1.8
I don't see need another body.
Feel the same re 'up-grading' my Fuji XT-1 to the XT-2 - for some this may be necessary but not for me and what I do - also, how the heck do you find out what your equipment is capable of if you continually buy new?
Mike thank you for all you share, good man.
Love your comment about being a photographer and stop worrying about your kit. It has been such a stumbling block.
That said, If it comes to purchasing a 24mm f/2.8 lens and a 24mm f/1.4, I’ll gladly purchase the one with the wider aperture, all other factors being equal.
When i moved to Fuji thought i needed the 16-55 but soon realised how good this kit one is, a previous video you did helped me with the decision when you had to buy the 16-55. Interesting view point about over sharpness. I also love using my old Olympus primes on the XT-2. Stephen
Thanks for another great video Mike. It would also be nice to have a little comparison section here on the 2.8 at the longer focal length vs the smaller lens at 5.6 (it's smallest f stop) for the same shot, show a bit what the extra money gets.
Wonderfully explained. Many thanks.
Hi Mike. Thanks for this video. I have the fuji 'kit' lens and think it's great. I do think some you tubers feed into the belief that a 2.8 lens is a must have. It may be for some uses. I always thought that lens rarely perform best wide open so why worry?
A constant aperture is handy to have, especially if you shoot manual. It allows you to zoom in without having to change exposure.
There's also more to a wider aperture than just the wide open performance, it lets you stop down 2 stops, giving you better IQ, and contrast, as well as less vignetting at the same exposure.
I guess it depends on the 2.8. I own the brilliant 50-140 f/2.8. Even at 2/8 it is amazingly sharp. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I shoot mainly in full manual and will not shoot with any zoom that is not a constant aperture. Gives me one less thing to worry about.
18-55 the right choice ; for faster aperture & shutter speeds, a fast prime can be used when situation demands, and no need to carry the heavy weight 16-55 ; Thanks, superb video
I have been reminding myself not to become a sheep gazing on this super duper sharpness wave. Totally agree I tend to work on my composition and not always want that crazy unreal sharpness, particularly when I m shooting videos. Thanks for keeping us all sane.
Hi Mike, can you please post FULL JPEGs for both? I would like to compare the 3D pop (micro-contrast) from the 16-55 WR F2, I own the 18-55, it is a good lens, but I was not impressed.
We seem to be flooded with marketing strategies to coax us into spending more money. Some of the better photos I have taken is with my D300 and 18-55 kit lens, paid only £225 and came with a Lowepro sling bag, new speed light and spare batteries. I do a lot of concert photography therefore I also have a Nikon D750 with Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2,8 and old Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 push pull lens and Nikon 50mm prime f1.8. I am very pleased with my lens purchases and the most I paid for one of these lenses was £385. I could never afford to spend £1000's on a lens and never felt the need to as what I have does exactly what I need them to do.
Another brilliant video Mike!.
Thanks Tony. ... MIKE
Just watched this video and may I add that back in the ( swinging ) 60's we used to use soft focus filters or a stocking over the lens to soften the image especially when taking portraiture, now its all about how sharp is the lens. Also what was in vogue at the time was "grain" the more grainy you could make your photos the cooler they where. I think trends and traits just come and go BUT good photos will stand the test of time and last forever
Missed you, man. Glad to see you again.
Hi I have a bottom of the range Sony A58; with sigma and Tamron lenses, they are all terrific, the only thing I want as an improvement is the Sony eye autofocus feature, apart from that I’d rather have a couple of decent bags so that I can carry my kit around comfortably.
I noticed you said you process your photos in Lightroom, so do I! I process in Lightroom 2 then send it to Photoshop CS3, was told to pick a program and stick with it...Julian
Here's a rookie question. Will the Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED work with my D7200 DX format? I'm looking for a decent lens of this range and I found this one. Are there any other choices if this is not compatable?
Hi @Mike Gervais. If it's a full frame lens on a DX body it will work. The effect will be to make it appear longer than the stated 500mm. Hope that helps... MIKE
@@MikeBrowne thank you Mike appreciate your response just wasn't sure if the lens would vignette on me at all. Also I don't know if this applies, but if it would dimonish the Boca as well. But I'm just glad to hear that the lens is compatible and certainly is my next investment as I step away from the D3200 and graduate to the D7200
Mike excellent video as always, but my question would be why go on a trip with out backup?
Thanks David... Good question. Partly complacency I guess. I've never lost a camera before! Plus I know I could likely borrow or buy something there if I really needed to. When running workshops I rarely shoot anything for myself. I'm there to teach not shoot - other than to demonstrate something to participants and I generally use their camera to do it so there's no ambiguity that my camera can do something theirs can't... MIKE
Very interesting Mike
I started with Nikon 24-70 2.8 and finding it impossible to carry work on the principle that unless lens is really long should be less than half a kilo
I have gone to a 28-70 3.5-4’5 Nikon and a 24-85 3.5 -
my skills get me the photograph but hope to do your 7 element course to develop that structured approach I have never had
Good comparison/review, but it's worth pointing out your price examples were way out and a bit misleading - there is only £280 difference between the two lenses new - £900 vs £620 (WEX uk)