18-200 vs 28-135?

I think as part of a kit, the 28-135 is a great value.

As mentioned the 18-55 if also a great choice if you're trying to stay economical.

Although I don't consider the 60D to be a real successor to the 50D, I think it's a great camera and the 18-135mm will be a really useful range.

woos wrote in post #11358753
However, if you can stand to swap lenses and just want a nice option that will save you money as well:
1. Buy 18-55mm IS. Can be had for ~$100. *Surprisingly* sharp, especially stopped down slightly. Imho the real image quality upgrades for the 18-55mm IS are the 15-85mm and the 17-55 2.8--anything less just isn't a big IQ upgrade.
2. Then buy the 55-250mm. Extremely sharp at 55mm. Decently sharp at the long end. Does lose some contrast at the long end. Cheap, tiny, light. Focus is accurate but slow. Other good alternative now for a little more $ is the Tamron 70-300 VC, which will be far superior probably.

I like this idea. Everyone shoots different but are you sure you really need that much reach? I have a three year old daughter that I often take to the park and I still find the long end of my 17-55 to be sufficient. The 85 is my least used lens. If you get something with less range your image quality will increase dramatically.

All good advice, thanks. My school has a 70-300 IS USM lens that I'm sure I could borrow for here and there. So I think if all goes to plan, I'd be covered from 28 to 300. This is all hypothetical still, I've no actual camera! It's on my wish list, and I'm just learning the ropes before hand.

Hi what do you think about Tamron 18-200. Is it same as Canon 18-200mm? Will I get the same performance? I have t4i , 50mm f1.8II, 55-250, 18-55mm.