Originally Posted by
abshipp
Question for the camera people:
My wife has a Canon EOS-M. Currently she has lenses in 22mm and 18-55mm. The 22mm doesn't really see any use at all, but the 18-55 has been quite useful for her - it seems to work well for her but she has expressed interest in getting something more on the telephoto side of things. Much of her photography is macro images of plants and the 18-55 is really great for that, but I'm sure there's been images she's wanted that the lens wouldn't give her.
The two lenses I'm looking at getting for her are a 18-150mm or a 55-200mm. It seems like the 18-150 would cover most of her general shooting but would obsolete her current 18-55, except in size. I'd imagine that the 55-200 would be a good addition to her current equipment, but I'm not sure how keen she would be on carrying around two lenses.
Would you prefer to have both the 18-55 and 55-200 or just the 18-150?
I'm leaning towards getting her the 55-200 but I'll be honest in saying that it might take some searching to find a used 18-150 that would be in my price range and that's coloring my opinion.
Super-zooms, those with a really big field of view difference between the short and long ends, typically aren't that great optically. They're usually comparatively heavy and expensive, too. Out of the two choices presented, I'd def go with the addition of a 55-200 rather than replacing the 18-55 with the 18-150.
What kinds of shots is she unable to get at this point, though? If you're talking true macro, or even close to it, the 55-200 probably isn't going to help (I haven't looked up the max mag on it, but I'd doubt it's more than 1:3).