Tamron 18-200, or 28-300?
 

I've had my camera (Rebel XT) for almost a year, and I've been using the lens that came in a kit with it. About time to upgrade! Since I've never bought a lens before, I'm a little lost. Finally narrowing it down to two lenses, I'm not sure which would be better to get. I do want to keep the wider angle if possible, but I also want a substantial amount of zoom.
Are these two lenses the ones I should be looking at?
Tamron 18-200
Tamron 28-300
Any help is appreciated!

Hi Trinity,

To help decide, it would be useful to know what kind of subject matter you intend taking with this lens. Also, it would be useful to know what you intend oing with the pictures - how will you be viewing them? Print or on screen? If in print, how big do you intend printing?

Sorry to ask questions instead of providing answers, but it's a bit like "how long is a piece of string" at the moment.

Regards,

Duncan

Duncan, thanks for replying. I'm not set into one kind of photography...I like doing some nature, abstract, and occasionally, people. I don't get many of my pictures printed since most of the time I just use them for internet purposes, so I'll be viewing them on a screen.

Trinity,

From what you have said, it appears that you don't want the extra reach of the 300mm lens. In reality, a 200mm lens on a dSLR with a 1.5x crop factor is usually enough for most people. If you aren't doing huge prints, then the need for a super-sharp lens goes away.

Given the broad range of subjects to intend to take pictures of, and the fact you view on screen rather than printing, I'd say you should be fine with the 18-200. If you need more reach later, then there's plenty of longer lenses out there to chose from.

Regards,

Duncan

Trinity,I do use the Tamron 28-300 lens.It is my quick carry and take out and about lens.Usually take it with me when walking the dog.I have taken some excellent dog shots with this lens,inc close ups,and also some very good shots of children.It seems to work very well with the cropped sensor cams,esp in good light.Not very good indoors with flash(but then I very rarely take indoor shots).If you want me to find a couple of shots to show,let me know.I do not have any on the pc at the moment,and they would need to be re-sized,which does take quite a while.But it is the one all rounder I would always keep,a great little lens,also very light.

Christine, I appreciate the offer of showing pictures, but I don't want to trouble you. Thank you both for your advice!

Hi Trinity

You used the term "upgrade" which could mean many things to many people. I assume you have the Canon Kit Lens 18 - 55mm. So it really depends on where you find the kit lens lacking.

On the image quaility front I doubt either of these lens are any better than the kit lens. They will give you an extended zoom range of x10 over the the x3 range of kit lens. Which can be very useful and versertile for a one lens solution travel - walk about lens.

With the Canon crop factor of 1.6 they lens will have a 35mm equivalent of

18 - 200mm = 29mm - 320mm - wide angle view to telephoto view
28 - 300mm = 45mm - 480mm - normal view to extreme telephoto

If you photography building and landscape then you will need the 18mm end of the range and the 300mm for small distant wildlife. I agree with Duncan that the 18 - 200mm is most likely to suit your subjects.

From a Quality point of view both lens score about 5/10 or 6/10. which is much the same as the kit lens. They seem to perform better when stopped down to f8 - f11 and give better image sharpness in the centre of the frame compared to the edge of the frame. Image distortion is another worry with wide range zoom lens.

A review of the 18-200mm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3563/index.htm

Zooms with a x10 range are best avoided because you have to spend a lot of money to overcome design compromises. This is why x3 zooms are much cheaper and generally give better image quaility.

If you want a wide zoom range for a walk about lens and always crop from the centre of the frame then go for it.

As you would prefer to have a wider lens, then the 18-200 would be best, that is unless, you plan to do more nature photography where the 28-300 would be the better choice. However, one choice would be to get the 18-200 and if you eventually need extra reach you could always buy a tele-converter (I don't know what the back of these lenses is like, but if they're anything like my sigma 28-300 then you would want to avoid any converter that sticks out at the front eg. Canon/sigma)

As Stephen Fox has pointed out in another thread elsewhere recently, tele-converters should only really be used with very, very good quality lenses. I know that if I use my t/con with my cheap Sigma 135-400 I get awful results. The two Tamron superzooms that Trinity is considering are very much convenience, consumer lenses (as Robski has already pointed out). I certainly wouldn't consider using a t/con with either of these lenses. If you need more reach later, there's plenty of 75-300 models that would do better than an 18-200 with a t/con attached.

Just my two penneth.

For digi shooting 18-200 wins hands down
If you wanna shoot full frame 5d etc or heaven forbid use a film eos use 28-300
nuff said

Rob, thanks for the review, I found it quite helpful and interesting to read. I've found my 18-55 to work quite well for me except for the zoom factor. So that's what I mean by upgrade.
Ant, My sister agrees with you and says that I should go for the 28-300 (she's a film photographer) She said that since I already have an 18-55 I could switch lenses for a wider shot.
I've never considered tele-converters because I'll "never" be able to afford a lens that works with them. :D (with good quality)
Joe, I've wondered about the pros and cons of the 28-300 being for film and digital and the 18-200 being only digital....
I'm currently leaning towards the 28-300, but am hoping to pay my local camera store a visit this week to see if I can test out the lenses before I buy.
Thank y'all!

Trinity;

You already got good deal of accurate information. Well I have not much ideas about smaller cousin, but personally own a 28-300 and let me share a few facts with you. The pros: Lens is the smallest in the industry for the rang it offers, and even is lightest, and reach to an unbelievable length at 300mm that you will be shocked as to where a these extra length was hidden...
The Con and by far important thing you want to pay attention is you get what you pay for. It is a good lens for when light is your friend and you have luxury of closing the diaphragm at least 2 stops. It is SOFT and I mean it. I went through a rough time when this was my main lens and only after paying for some L series start to see sharpness even in my dreams:). Well this is after becoming a lot poorer...:(

Lens is fine up to 200mm or so and after that you want to completely avoid the wide open F stop in hight focal lengths or a very soft picture is all you get. Remember that F is variable so when you get to hight levels of focal length the F is much smaller. I always thought this should make a very good combination to have XT, the lightest DSLR in addition to tamron's 28-300mm for a photojournalist on run who may want to take picture of critical zones when mobility is a mater of life or death such as Iraq or elsewhere, but to my surprise even the cheapest smallest news companies photographer prefer to use much heavier D1 D5 with something like 16-40L and 70-200L IS. May be they count on the mere weight of equipment as a potential projectile weapon if in need:D.

Of the topic but seriously consider the quality loss you get in view of money you save and also comfort of weight you carry.
If you need my advise. Go for at least 2 lens instead of one very wide range. A good and relatively cheap combination in my opinion is Canon EF 75-300 (Or same range Sigma or formerly called Quantarary) Non IS that here costs (Canon) about $140 at costco and then if you are for too extreme wide, Canon's EFs 10-22mm (About 450-500$) or 17-40mmL a little more expensive if the very wide not needed.

If you should settle for Tamron, consider checking ebay or likewise for same model you want (Consider that both exist in older and newer digital grain at about 100-150 $ difference so attention ot Xi etc that comes in lens description to compare orange with orange and not apple with pc...) where you may find many willing to sell as they are upgrading to better glass at a saving that is passed to you.

Hope my adding confusion, to your already pre-existing headache helped...
Also remember a lot of time when you happy paying less initially, you land a lot more at the end...:(

Basically the 18-200 will give you the same view on Canon DSLR as the 28-300 on a 35mm film camera.

Another factor to consider with Digital is that the sensor is smaller than the 35mm frame therefore you have the advantage of using the sweet spot of any lens. Purely Digital only lens are made to take advantage of this point and do not cover the full 35mm frame area to keep the price down. i.e the lens lets in a smaller circle of light compared to lens originally designed for 35mm film format.

Well I did it! Purchased the 18-200 today. :D
Thanks to everyone for your help!

Hi Trinity be sure to lets know what you think of it after using it for a couple of weeks.

Trinity,glad you have made your purchase,and do hope you enjoy using.Just out of interest, here is a shot taken yesterday,using the 28-300 ,I was holding the cam with one hand ,as the other hand was holding the ball high in the air,to attract the attention of Alfie.This is the only cam/lens combi I can do this with,as the lens is so light.

I'll be sure to do that, Rob.
I love the picture, Christine! What a wonderful capture. Thanks for taking the time to show it!

I use the 28-300 for airshow photography and i love it. Its a nice light lens and it is always the lens i reach for when i whant to take my camera anywhere.