18-200mm

The local camera shop guy told me the best all around everyday lens is a 18-200mm. I have a Canon Rebel XS with the standard 18-55mm and a Quantaray 70-300mm.

Would the 18-200 be a good investment? He also said the Sigma lens was better then the Canon. I see where this lens is offered in two styles, the DC and the OS. Is the optical stabilization that big a deal and worth the extra dollars?

Thanks.

i would look into the tamron 18-270mm. I had it for a little while and it worked very well. just check out the lens sample thread

Davidletran wrote in post #7635726
i would look into the tamron 18-270mm. I had it for a little while and it worked very well. just check out the lens sample thread

I agree. Tamron is known for those "ultra-zoom" lenses, and put out a very good product. With the 18-270, you get more range, stabilization, and a lower price!

I own the Tamron 18-270 VC and I like it a lot. I bought it after a ton of research. I chose it over the Sigma 18-200 OS and the Canon 18-200 IS. Actually quality wise the Sigma is the least competitive of the 3, so the camera shop guy was not really telling the truth. Maybe he gets commission from Sigma.

Anyway, whichever you choose, you have to be aware that a zoom like these comes with compromises, but they are convenient. IQ will not be as good as a good prime, or even a good standard zoom. But I have a good copy of the Tamron and know it's limitations. I'm happy with it.

I'd suggest checking out the Lens Sample Photo Archive section where you can find sample photos and analysis of these 3 lens.

Thanks so much for the info. I realize there will be compromise with using a single lens for several applications. But for me the benefit is not having to lug around a bag of extra lenses.

How important is the optical stabilization feature? Is it worth the money?

Thanks again.

It is definitely worth the money. The VC in the Tamron is the best of all of these superzooms' image stabilizations.

And yes, I also wanted an all-in-one lens for vacations, and walks so I don't have to carry my other lenses.

gabebalazs wrote in post #7636827
It is definitely worth the money. The VC in the Tamron is the best of all of these superzooms' image stabilizations.

And yes, I also wanted an all-in-one lens for vacations, and walks so I don't have to carry my other lenses.

The vc helps a lot when wide open. especially when you're driving around and wanna snap pictures.

VC/OS/IS is worth it on a lens that long.

When I was shooting Sony I heard a lot of good things about the Tamron 18-250, and some people say the 18-270 is even better. What an awesome range.

One thing you could do is sell the Quantaray and buy a Canon 55-250 for not much more money. You will have 2 lenses to switch between, but you already have the 18-55 and the 55-250 only costs $250. The optical quality on the Canon 18-55 + 55-250 might be slightly better than one of the super zooms, but not much. It is really just a trade off on convenience vs. cost.

I've now read a lot of good things about the Tamron lens. I figure if I am going to invest, I may as well get something great instead of good!

Well bear in mind that spending $600 on a 70-200 f/4L or a 16-40 f/4L would be great. The compromise of a super zooms is that the image quality is very good, but not great. However, in sun lit out door pictures with the aperture stepped down a little, the Tamron is probably going to be just about even with the L lens.

laydros wrote in post #7637795
Well bear in mind that spending $600 on a 70-200 f/4L or a 16-40 f/4L would be great. The compromise of a super zooms is that the image quality is very good, but not great. However, in sun lit out door pictures with the aperture stepped down a little, the Tamron is probably going to be just about even with the L lens.

I dont think the tamron is any par with the L lens. sorry but im sure many will back me up on this.

if you are not going to use the telephoto, there's no point. I'd say the cheapest best all around would be the 28-135 or 105 for more tele, or the tamron 17-50. If you want the best, well, I always liked the 24-105L

Davidletran wrote in post #7639419
I dont think the tamron is any par with the L lens. sorry but im sure many will back me up on this.

Agreed. The Tamron especially is a very high quality lens ... for a super zoom. There is only so many tricks these guys can pull off with glass. For an all-in-one, vacation and snapshot type lens, it's worth the money.

Tamron 18-270 ordered!!!!

Cool, let us know if you have any questions, I'm sure we can give you useful tips and tricks. You can send me a pm too if you have a question.