canon 28-200 EF USM

[harpoon]

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? I know 28-135 has received a lot of recommendations, but 135 isn't quite long enough for me, and I hate to change lens every so often in the field.

[HoodedOne]

In a test I saw a few months back, The canon 28 - 200 f/3.5-5.6 USM was outclassed by the Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 and the Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 XR. And that for a better price compared to the canon lens.

cheers

[harpoon]

Thank you for the comment HoodedOne. I am bit nervous using non-Canon lens because of the focus issue. Don't feel so keen on being bounced between Canon and Tamron....sigh.....

[scollins]

harpoon wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with this lens? I know 28-135 has received a lot of recommendations, but 135 isn't quite long enough for me, and I hate to change lens every so often in the field.

I have the 28-200EF USM lens you're talking about. I originally tried the Tamron 28-300mm and didn't like it at all. I brought that lens back and moved to the Canon 28-200 instead.

[HoodedOne]

I just looked up the test i was talking about. It is in the June issue of Practical Photography (UK magazine). The Sigma and the Tamron are almost identical in quality. But the Tamron zooms clockwise and the Sigma (like the canon) counter clockwise.
The Canon lens has the best macro and focusing, but are those important ? If they are, then go with the Canon lens (you won´t be disapointed), if not than buy a Sigma or Tamron and save a lot of money and be happy.
But remember, if you plan to buy a newer camera within a few years. Then the sigma and tamron lens can cause problems, like they had with the introduction of the 10D.

cheers