Final advise before I kit up

Well I have just found the supplier of Tamron lenses ( and Sigma) in Shanghai and was very excited to learn that they have a very reasonable priced 18-200. I was going to buy the Canon 18-85 but now im seriously thinking should I change to the Tamron.

Can you all advise what sort of down side is there to the Tamron with the much larger zoom. ( Herad that one should not get too board a zoom numbers) Its has no IS so is that a problem as I have no tripod.

Also does the automatic focus work with the Canon 350D or would I have to manualy focus.

The shop in their basic English tell me that Tamron is better quality than Sigma quiv. lens.

Your advise would be invaluable as I have no expets to help me.

Simon

I have the kit 18-55 and it is not sharp as I would like, so I'm going to replace it with a Tamron 28-75.

What do you want to use the lens for mainly and what's your budget?

landscapes mostly
for serious interiors i will use mi 10-22

The 18-55 lens has very varied quality control, but is generally considered to be OK

But Tamron produce some great lenses, and the 18-200 covers a pretty good range. I would probably recommend you give the tamron a try first.

The Tamron 18-200 is passable but not a patch on Canon lenses for quality. Compare these 2 crops; Canon 28-135 V Tamron 18-200. I need say no more!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

We still don't know what your budget is so you're not making helping you very easy

Aa zoom can be used for landscapes but the field of view is too narrow to get much satisfaction across many shots, esp. as you have a very nice wide angle which will do a much better job of it? I'm confused why do you want such a lens for that use? You seem to be making you choice on length/cheap price and then using it for the wrong reason. Strange!!!!

You shouldn't normally need a IS lens for handshake at the 28-135mm length unless you shake a lot! Both images above are poor and I wouldn't buy either lens irrespective of brand. I had the 28-135 IS and sold it within days, but it has a use if you need the range and IS and don't mind losing quality over better, faster and cheaper lenses.

I'd always prefer a quality fast lens at this focal range to an IS that is more expensive and poorer quality. The recommendations I make for the standard zoom range are the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro and the Tamron SP 28-75. Both have some long term value in a collection.

dont think this is a very fair test. It appears that the two pics were taken at different focal lengths.

I have the 18-200mm Sigma version which is not much different and I find it Slow in low light..the 6.3 is tough to use on bad days but it performs well around that...As for clarity, well, it will never be outstandiing but it provides decent shots..I am looking to get a new lens in the future too..either the 50mm 1.4 or the 70-200mm L....but...it is not a bad lens.

Below is one of my recent shots with it

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Well I am willing to spend as much as the ES-F 17-85mm. When I say landscapes I suppose I mean to zoom in a bit on some shots, but I find the 10-22 a bit weird for normal shooting. So I would use my new lens as an all round one really.

Consider Sigma's 18-50/2.8 It will give you a usable range for low light!

Simon, one thing that you should understand is that a zoom lens with a zoom ratio significantly exceeding 3:1 (3:1 example: 50mm to 150mm) is likely to be an optical compromise at best.

Most high quality zoom lenses have a zoom ratio of 3:1 or less. Canon "L" lens examples: 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, etc.

The 18-200mm lens you are looking at has a zoom ratio exceeding 10:1.

Here are some Sigma 18-200 images
http://www.pbase.com/s​jprg/monterey_aquarium

Ok, so that's around $600 US. As you have the wide angle covered nicely already the logical choice is a standard zoom. The 10-22mm will be weird for normal shots. Have a l;ook on www.photosig.com for the kinds of shots people would use this lens for.

The 17-85mm IS is a safe choice if top quality isn't a prime consideration, but it will still delivery excellent shots if used correctly and the IS will help if you have shaky hands.

The Sigma and Tamron's I mentioned above are better lenses. If you really do want to go to 200mm then the 70-200mm f4 Canon is a great lens for the money, but you then have a big hole from 22mm to 70mm, which is the standard walkaround, family, holiday kinda range. You could 'fill' it with a 50mm II prime lens and that is very cheap, about $80 US I guess. No flexibility though with a prime lens like that, but good quality and works well in low light.

I would go the 24-70 2.8 DG Macro Sigma route and pocket lots of change, knowing I have great quality for the longer term. The 17-85mm IS is fine too.

Have a look at this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=88304 and the 18-200mm can do a job. Tho' in principle I'd agree with Skip above there are exceptions to the rule. Any choice is a compromise.

Well the result was a close thing. When I saw the price of the Sigma 18-125 and 18-200 I could not believe it. So I was going to go for the 18-125, as I remember that Skip said not to get too much of a large zoom ratio. So I tested it and well.........I'm sorry I took a dislike to the loud motor noise and the stiff zoom turning thing. Just did not feel like my 10-22mm. Even though the sensible "me" deep inside said noooo! its just a lens, I went and bought the 17-85.

As Skip said again - dont get to much zoom ration, so I thought I would stick to the branded safe option.

Thanks for all you help especially Condyk who does seem to advise many of us newbies who ask exactly the same question week after week.

I dont think I will need another lens for a while now. Next I have to learn how to use all my new stuff. Thats there real challenge!!!!!!!!!!!!!​!

Simon