With a budget of about 5,000 yuan, I plan to equip Canon 80D with lenses, mainly shooting tourist scenery and portraits. Recommend it?

I have experienced the confusion of the topic and have been entangled in these two schemes. At that time, I was a combination of 18- 135 and Sigma 50 1.4, wondering whether to change it to 1755, and finally my choice was not to change it to 1755. But then it entered the overall situation and made 24 105 and 35 decisions.

For the choice of these two schemes, I prefer to recommend the second scheme, namely 18 135 plus 50. First of all, analyze the purpose of the topic: tourist scenery and portraits. In fact, strictly speaking, this is a difficult scene to take into account. Generally speaking, the wide-angle lens is used for framing, and the portrait is generally in the middle focus (but I am used to wide-angle, which depends on the photographer's habits and the characteristics of the model). In the process of traveling, telephoto is inevitable in many places (mainly, but not only taking long-range photos, but also taking close-up photos and telephoto scenery). In addition, there is no solution (so-called16-1000 mm f/1.0 lens) that can solve the needs of the subject conveniently and perfectly, whether shooting portraits with blurred backgrounds or traveling.

Then the main considerations are:

1, convenience (I feel that the tourist demand of the subject is the most important, and convenience comes first)

The first scheme is one machine and one mirror, without changing the lens; Option 2 is two shots. Therefore, in terms of convenience, the scheme is excellent.

2. Function

(1) coke section. 18 135 provides more comprehensive focal length coverage. For travel, focal length convenience is more important than large aperture, especially for non-professional players, what is needed is that you can shoot and record any scene at any time. At this point, neither 1755 nor the common three-lens combination of wide-angle zoom+medium-focus fixed focus+telephoto can achieve the large zoom convenience of 18 135. For example, if you go to a place and find a beautiful bird in the distance, at this time, 1755 is definitely not clear. You open the camera bag and change the telephoto lens. As soon as they are aligned, people fly away. So from the focal length, the second scheme is excellent.

(2) aperture. The functional advantage of 1755 is the large aperture, but the large aperture is generally used to deal with low light environment or take some photos with blurred background, which is usually prepared, not improvised, so there will be enough time to change the lens, so the 50-degree setting of the second scheme is to make up for this part of functional defects. Furthermore, the 2.8 aperture of 1755 is not the same as the aperture of 1.4 set by 50, so the fixed focus can really be called a large aperture. Of course, it is undeniable that the second scheme does not have the function of wide angle and large aperture. So in terms of aperture, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I think the second scheme is slightly better.

(3) 18 135 has anti-shake. Although this function is generally not easy to use, it can come in handy, especially in low-light scenes. Of course, the aperture of 1755 should be at least close to the first gear. So even in this respect.

3, image quality (using a SLR without a mobile phone or a small camera is definitely the pursuit of image quality)

The image quality of 18 135 is more reliable, obviously better than that of 18200, and it is also a large zoom. It is certainly better than 1755, but the gap is not so obvious, especially after the aperture is reduced. And if you want the ultimate picture quality, you'd better consider upgrading to Quan Huafu. That's another kind of problem. This is also one of the reasons for the general sales of lens 1755. The positioning is awkward and the price is not low. If you really want to upgrade the whole framework, it won't work.

And 50 1.4, as the saying goes, fixed focus is not weak, as cheap as a small spittoon 50 1.8, and the picture quality is not weak.

4. System

Not everyone will upgrade the whole frame, but the first scheme 1755 is not available, and the second scheme 50 1.4 can still be kept. Personally, I am not superstitious about Canon's 50L, so Quan Huafu +50 1.4 is a good light and reliable fixed focus combination in my opinion.

Let's look at 1755 and 18 135 again. These two cannot be kept. Compared with the former, the latter can fully understand each focus segment and bring more experience and convenience to individuals.

Finally, to sum up:

Convenience: The first scheme is very good.

Functionality: Scheme II is more comprehensive.

Image quality: the basic requirements are not bad, each has its own advantages, and the second scheme is more playable.

System: The second scheme can keep the fixed focus, and the large zoom is more suitable for beginners.

To sum up, the second scheme is recommended.

However, the first option is also an option that can be considered. Its collocation is very similar to a 2470' s full-frame camera, which is experienced by almost 99% of friends, but it is also the most criticized. The reason is that this collocation should be the best choice to meet as many scenes as possible on the premise of one machine and one mirror, and it is Quan Huafu.

So, if you don't want to change the lens at all (this is really a troublesome action, especially when traveling with a group, which will not delay other people's time, or your traveling companion is unwilling to cooperate or even wait for you to change the lens, it is often not easy to change the lens yourself), and you are determined not to change Quan Huafu, 1755 is the only best choice at present.

So, come back, let's see what factors are most important to the subject. There can be no perfect solution. There are many factors. Let's see which factors are the most important so that we can make a decision. For example, the second scheme I recommend is more comprehensive. If the topic mainly considers convenience and image quality, then the first scheme is very good; And if convenience and comprehensiveness are not the most important considerations, but specialization and the pursuit of the best performance, it may be true that, as upstairs said, we choose 10-22+50 and give up telephoto (be prepared psychologically, don't shoot if you can't shoot, and hang on 10-22 most of the time, knowing that most of the time is equivalent to connecting telephoto.