Tamron 18-200, or 28-300?

[Trinity]

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. (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!

[sassan]

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.

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...

[robski]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I've wondered about the pros and cons of the 28-300 being for film and digital and the 18-200 being only digital....

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.

[Trinity]

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

[robski]

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

[Christine]

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.

[Trinity]

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!

[ollieholmes]

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.