canon 18-200 best decision

I should really consider my definition of diverse range, you are right about that. The images I typically take have no set up time. I shoot mostly in Av mode, I use my my flash for fill very often. ( 420 ). It's mostly family pics, just with that extra bit of quality that you get with an SLR with a half decent lens and a real flash, compared to a point and shoot, so I don't want to get a lens that technically will be able to achieve higher IQ, but due to my environment, I will never see that potential. this being said, I will read this link to the 28-300.

Also, 2 questions, will the IQ on this be superior to the 28-105. Secondly, is this lens, 18-200, the kind of lens that produces a sharper image one or 2 stops down from wide open, is there a known speet spot for this lens ?

AMG wrote in post #10151306
Hi all. I am really leaning towards this lens for my "one for everything" lens. I use the rebel XT, I also have the nifty fifty for when I feel like playing around. I have read in here that some feel the 18-200 is a great choice if you get it at a good price, but otherwise maybe not the best choice, I really want the best image quality with the best range. I would say that cost is an issue but if this will be my all the time lens that will likely last me a very long time, then I guess I could justify spending more for quality. I have 2 young kids, so my pictures sare mostly of them, some scenery, mostly vacation shots, weeknds, etc. When I make big purchases, I like to feel no regrets, so I would appreciate any help. Like I said, when I need to take the pictures, I won't have the time to change lenses, so one lens, best quality with the best range would be the logical choice right now.

The two highlighted phrases are mutually exclusive of one another. You want both, you can't have both... pick your main priority. If you're looking for IQ, look elsewhere. If you're looking for convenience you've found a good choice.

Perhaps you want to ask which is the best choice among the super-zooms?

borism wrote in post #10162961
Let me chime in
Please read Mr Ziser blog
http://digitalprotalk.​blogspot.com/

He uses his 7D with a 18-200IS many times for his wedding work, you'll find the first pic as a example of that.
I had one and loved that lens, sold it to fund the 15-85 (that i have to say love even more)
Cheers

There is nothing wrong with using this lens as an all in 1. Does it compare to a 24-105 f4L, no. But for vacations, everyday family fun stuff; this is an awesome lens. I bought it specifically for a trip to Hawaii and could not have been more pleased.

I know of some great (booked year round, very expensive) wedding photographers who will use what many of us consider to be sub par glass and deliver incredible images to their clients.

I let my mom borrow it to use it with her xti; and I never got it back. She loves it for taking pictures of the grand kids etc.

I'm trying to decide between this lens and the Tamron 18-270 VC for my wife's 500D.I have some L's (24-105 F4 and 70-200 F4 IS) and have owned many more.I tried an 18-200 Canon a year ago,but briefly,and was very impressed.Not impressed enough to buy one for my use,but enough to recommend it to others who don't want to drop $1000+ on each lens and have to buy more than one lens as well.

I can see it being a great all-in-one solution for many shooters.Now,if I can decide between it and the Tamron....

as far as I can tell from some research, the tamron AF is slower.

AMG, I'd recommend looking around for a good deal on a used 18-200 and trying it out for an extended period of time. You can always re-sell it if it is not for you, and probably be out less than rental will cost.

AMG wrote in post #10185270
I should really consider my definition of diverse range, you are right about that. The images I typically take have no set up time. I shoot mostly in Av mode, I use my my flash for fill very often. ( 420 ). It's mostly family pics, just with that extra bit of quality that you get with an SLR with a half decent lens and a real flash, compared to a point and shoot, so I don't want to get a lens that technically will be able to achieve higher IQ, but due to my environment, I will never see that potential. this being said, I will read this link to the 28-300.

Also, 2 questions, will the IQ on this be superior to the 28-105. Secondly, is this lens, 18-200, the kind of lens that produces a sharper image one or 2 stops down from wide open, is there a known speet spot for this lens ?

I bought the Canon 18-200 for vacation shots and events where I need the zoom. The 18-200 does the job with flying colors. I have the canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 Mk II and shot more than 8,000 images with it before the 18-200 (bought 2 months ago). My copy of the 28-105 is sharper than the 18-200. The 18-200 is reasonably sharp, but I was expecting it to be as sharp as the 28-105. If it was, I would be very very happy already.
Stopped down, the 18-200 is sharp enough. I have not shot extensively for this lens, but some photos I took between 50 to 100mm with this lens are very sharp.

AMG wrote in post #10210562
as far as I can tell from some research, the tamron AF is slower.

The "cons" I keep seeing in the Tamron reviews are slow AF in low light,lens creep,noisy VC and AF.The Local shop is pushing the Tamron(but seem to be pushing "too hard").

I'm leaning to the Canon as it seems to be preferred by most of the better review sites,but review results are very mixed.

In this review, Tamron is softer than Canon (resampled) at 270mm.

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …8-250_tamrom18-250_18-270

I found mine (Canon 18-200 IS) better than my previous Sigma 18-200 OS (sharpness and contrast). Very good through the focal range, only at 18 mm wide open is a little soft. There's some CA but can be easily removed with PP. Faster AF than Sigma.

In my Flickr account (in signature), you can see some photos with this lens.

Josepix wrote in post #10216659
In this review, Tamron is softer than Canon (resampled) at 270mm.

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …8-250_tamrom18-250_18-270

I found mine (Canon 18-200 IS) better than my previous Sigma 18-200 OS (sharpness and contrast). Very good through the focal range, only at 18 mm wide open is a little soft. There's some CA but can be easily removed with PP. Faster AF than Sigma.

In my Flickr account (in signature), you can see some photos with this lens.

I have to agree about the Sigma, is a little too soft for my taste, never tried any other all-in-one zoom lens after my experience with the Sigma 18-200.

If it helps, I've tried all of these lenses. Since I don't currently have any superzooms to sell, I am an unbiased observer.

The Tamron 18-270mm is the only superzoom with truly excellent IQ. AF is not as fast, especially in low light or low contrast, but the IS is the best I have seen on ANY lens, including L's. It is soft at 270, but the competitors don't even go to 270mm. It was engineered differently from others to have its best results in the middle of its range. From 30-100mm it is very sharp at any aperture, and has corner-to-corner sharpness if at about f/7.1 - 11. Most of these lenses are designed for the ends of their range and have some very bad results at certain intervening focal lengths.

The Canon 18-200mm and the stabilised Sigma 18-200 or 18-250mm are okay at certain lengths but will not exceed the quality of a kit lens. Of these two, the Sigma is about $200 less for similar quality, so it is a better value. The Canon is a little better at low-light AF.

Think about the 15-85. Great sharpness and covers a very useful zoom range. Add a 70-300 IS too and you've got it covered.

OP, since you have a Canon XT, either the Canon 18-200 or the Tamron 18-270 would be a very good choice for a superzoom. The XT's 8mp sensor does not put these lenses under tough pressure as far as sharpness goes. I had an XT and I used it with my Tamron 18-270.

As far as someone said that 3rd party lenses are never as good as the original brand, well actually 3 of the most reputable review sites, DPreview, SLRgear, and Photozone all declared the Tamron as the winner for best IQ in this class (if not by much), and so did our own POTN member Lightrules in his superzoom shootout. However, AF is slower than the Canon 18-200, that's a fact (not that you could shoot fast action sports well with the Canon 18-200).

I like my Tamron, I've owned it for a year and a half, used it on XT, XTi, 40D, 50D, and 7D during that time. Focus is accurate (if mediocre speed), and this is one of the few lenses that does not require any microadjustment on my 7D.

But like I said, superzooms do have a place in the DSLR world and I'd recommend going for either the Canon or the Tamron to use as a casual vacation/walkaround lens.

all very helpful comments, thanks to all of you.

I would pick Tamron over Canon with this type of lens, My favorite lens is the Tamron 28-75 and before that I had a Tamron 70-300 which produce great images. I really like Tamron and for the price is a no brainer is most cases.