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