Sigma 18-200 or Tamron 28-300?

Sorry if this has been asked before. I have done a search on both lenses, read a lot, but still can't make my mind.
I have a Canon 400D.
Should i get a Sigma 18-200, or the Tamron 28-300.
I have a Canon 70-300 IS, but i am looking for something small with a good zoom for travel. I know that both are soft at 200 and 300.

The Sigma is 540$ Canadian. (new)
I could get a used Tamron for 350$ Ca
Also possible to get a used Sigma for 450.

Is the IQ about the same? If someone could help me, I would realy appreciate.
Thank you

i wouldnt buy either of those... get a sigma 17-70 or tamron 24-75 f2.8 to start... then later add a good telezoom and dont forget the nifty 50mm f1.8 for that lowlight indoor stuff!

On a 1.6 crop camera, the 18-200 is a better range. 28 doesnt really go wide.

Of course, I expect you to be aware that any of these hyper zooms are a compromise between convenience and quality.

If you really want that range in a single lens, I would support kram's view. Whilst bothh are compromise lenses you can still get good results if you are careful. I had the Tammy 28-300 and found it lacked at the shirt end on a 1.6 crop body hence would recommend the 18-200 range. Maybe the 18-125 might be worth a look too...

Thanks for the reply.
Since i have the kit lens that give me the 18mm, should I consider the Tamron?
IQ speaking, are those two egual? Is the 200mn Sigma like the Tamron at 200mm?

In my view the only reason to have a hyperzoom is to have only one lens. If you have the kit, suggest you look at a 70-300 (Sigma APO?) instead. Really depends how much you want to be changing lenses. I'm afraid I can;t comment on IQ of one vs other @ 200mm. But the Tammy28-300 is probably only a true 275-280mm anyway.

EOSAddict wrote in post #2141040
In my view the only reason to have a hyperzoom is to have only one lens. If you have the kit, suggest you look at a 70-300 (Sigma APO?) instead. Really depends how much you want to be changing lenses. I'm afraid I can;t comment on IQ of one vs other @ 200mm. But the Tammy28-300 is probably only a true 275-280mm anyway.

I agree.

Xico, if your looking for a Sigma 70-300 APO macro in Canada, pm me.

Don't get a hyperzoom unless you want to sacrifice image quality. If you look in the sigs of most members you'll note that they typically have a two lens combo to cover those focal ranges. I'd recommend the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-5O with a Sigma 70-200 or 70-300 APO DG.

liza wrote in post #2204157
Don't get a hyperzoom unless you want to sacrifice image quality. If you look in the sigs of most members you'll note that they typically have a two lens combo to cover those focal ranges. I'd recommend the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-5O with a Sigma 70-200 or 70-300 APO DG.

I agree

When I got my 350D, afew months later I got the sigma 18-200 and I brought it with me to LOndon, Paris and Portugal. The images were ok but I recognizesd the limitation on PQ but I wanted to bring just one lens. Anyway, when I got back home, I got the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 17-70
Yeah...I know...doubled up nut they are fantastic. I'll save for a better zoom later.
Pat

I went travelling for 5 weeks last year in South America with the Sigma 18-200mm. I also took a 50mm, 90mm macro, and a 10-22mm....but invariably i stuck with the 18-200mm for versatility and not having to change lenses a lot.

I think the photos are, as everyone has said above, not of the same quality as you'd get with more dedicated lenses. But I was very happy and it sure beat carrying more gear or opening your bag up with a lot of people around

Check out the photos on my website (under South America).

I wouldn't get either, you've already got the 70-300 I would get the Canon 17-85IS to go with it, nice sharp little lens then you're covering 17-300mm with 2 lenses

I agree with the poster above. You already have a 70-300IS, so you should keep it (it's a great lens, in the major leagues image quality with minor league pricing...) and i suggest that you consider the Sigma 17-70. This is MY dynamic duo at the moment. Other similar lens are also to look at such as the new Tamron (is it 18-50 or similar) and yes the Canon 17-85 (although i prefer the Sigma for IQ, form factor and price). After you get that second "midrange" lens to complement your 70-300IS you may consider something in the 10-20/22 range (Canon EFS 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 or Tokina whatever) and you will have a complete versatile set of good quality lens.

I tried both the 18-200 and 18-125 from Sigma and i decided to sacrifice range for quality and bought the 17-70. (I bought the Canon 70-300IS the next week...).

18-200, 28-200 and similars are only solutions when quality is not your priority and you must shoot outdoors without having time to change lenses. I can only guess such lens are usefull only to reporters and newspaper photographers (where image quality is not that important).
I'm not saying that such lenses are garbage: you can shoot nice pictures if you know how to use them to their best, but it's a bad way way to spend your money when great quality lenses are available and when you already own one of them (70-300IS). Hope its not the 75-300IS you do have because i would change my argumentation 180 degrees if it's the case....

This is a pretty old thread and I think the OP made his mind up some time back! Went for 70-300.