18-200mm lenses

[campinggal]

Just a heads up- if you are even remotely considering this lens- get it on order while you think about it.

These are very scarce these days- I've had one on order since July and the ship date has just been moved yet again to Dec 19th!!!

Given the type of shooting I'm most prone to do, this lens seemed to be the perfect all around lens for me and more versitile than the 18-70 that I currently use.

Good luck with your decision!

 

[safetymom]

I have one and love it. I only waited 5 weeks for mine and that seemed like forever.

 

[safetymom]

I have the 18-200 VR and love it. I love the VR feature.

 

[Ratpack]

Here is an album of images taken with a Nikkor 18-200VR. There are over 20,000 images there using this lens.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/18-200_35-56g_if_ed_afs_dx_vr

These are great, but I would like to see some Disney photos by average photographers like myself. Then I can really compare.

 

[safetymom]

If you follow the first link in my signature look at the Castle Albums. They were all taken with my 18-200 VR.

 

[tink4ever]

Help Which Lens is Better Canon 28-135 or Tamron 18-200? I bought the Canon Rebel XTI and have been trying to research about buying a great lens to take most pictures with. I will be using my camera a lot for taking sports pictures of my children. They play every sport and that is mainly why we bought this camera. I also would like to take night shots at WDW in Jan. HELP! I am truly confused!! Thanks,

 

[Master Mason]

First off, I have niether lens. But from what I know here are a couple of things to concider

1. Big Zoom Ranges tend to be soft to poor at the extreams. So the 18-200 is a large range to try and cover with a single lens.

2. The 28 start on the cannon isn't terribly wide. You might find some shots harder to get if you can without having the wider lens. The 28 is equivalant to a 44 in 35MM speak.

3. Look at the appatures of both lenses. For night shots your going to want a larger apeture, and I am fairly certain that as you zoom in, both of these lenses will close the apeture.

4. I have heard good comments about the canon lens, but know almost nothing about the tammorand. That doesn't mean it isn't a good lens, just that I have heard nothing about it.

hope that helps a little.

 

[rolla01]

I don't have neither of these, but I used to have a Sigma 18-125mm. Focusing on the Sigma 18-125 is very slow and noisy, in compare to my other Canon lens with USM motor. The 18-200 gives you good range, but Tamron will have a Tamron AF 18-250 mm Di-II lens soon. The Tamron will be a very good travel lens, but not so good for sports.

Advantage about the Canon 28-135mm lens:
1. USM (quick/silent focus)
2. IS (good for hand-held)
3. Build quality

What I suggest if you have the right budget, get the Canon 70-200 F4 IS (or even F2.8).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Boss Hogg]

Not sure that you will get a conclusive answer to this. From what I know I would think that both lenses are similar - not saying one might not be better, but I would not say either will be significantly better than the other.

I've neither of the lenses, but have a Sigma 18-125 for everyday use and I find it very good (on my 400D/XTi).

If you want a lens to take sports pics I am assuming that you will be quite a long way from the action. Both have a decent length zoom, but the Tamron is longer. As MM said, it is said that the longer range of the Tamron may be soft at the end of the zoom. This is the reason I bought the Sigma 18-125 and not the Sigma 18-200. That having been said, ours is fine at full zoom.

At the other end, the Tamron would also win by virtue of the wider angle.

Also, the Tamron will be much cheaper than the Canon.

So to conclude, you pay your money, you take your choice I guess. I had a similar dilemma and ended up with the Sigma 18-125, which I'm very happy with.

May be worth having a go with both at your local retailer.

 

[MICKEY88]

every sport..???

if that includes football soccer or any outdoor sport where there will be a bit of distance between them and the camera, I'd want a 100-300 for sports...

 

[extreme8]

Just to chime in and agree with most of the previous answers, the 28-135 will almost certainly have better optical quality while the Tamron 18-200 is a much more flexible lens.

I bought a Sigma 18-200 for my Minolta 5D (very similar to the Tamron)and almost never removed it. Having the extra angle of view at the 18 end was extremly helpful, and the extra reach at 200 was useful as well. After reading reports from the "pixel peepers" on line I was concerned about the image quality and reported softness.
In actual use I saw very little unless viewing a 100% crop. That's not the way I print photos in real life, so why worry?
The convenience of having one lens that "does it all" far outweighs any shortcomings in picture quality that I had noticed.
The superzooms don't have lightning fast focus, but with a little practice on you should be able to make due for sports. I think the Tamron is at f5.6@200mm, so daytime shots shouldn't present a problem. You will find the extra 65mm of focal length to be a lifesaver.

One other thing that is rarely considered until it bites you in the you-know-what, is that changing lenses allows dust to get into the camera body and muck up your sensor. Having a single lens for most situations does alleviate this quite a bit.

Just like everywhere else in life - anything that tries to do everything doesn't do any one thing particularly well.
Decide which features matter to you (do you value image quality over convenience and extended range) and go from there.

For what it's worth, I just bought a Nikon D200 and my first lens investment was the Nikon 18-200. I plan to add some quality glass going forward, (70-200 2.8 VR) but I just can't beat the all around usability of the superzoom - even at nearly 3x the cost of the Tamron/Sigma's.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Anewman]

Just to chime in and agree with most of the previous answers, the 28-135 will almost certainly have better optical quality while the Tamron 18-200 is a much more flexible lens.

I agree 100%

The 28-135 is a better lens period, the Tamron has a wider focal range and nothing else.

One should not confuse focal range with quality.

 

[jann1033]

i have the canon 28-135 and rarely find the need for a more wide angle and use the kit lens i got off ebay for those occasions.. i like the IS( don't know if the tamron has it) and i am really pleased with the lens...haven't ever owned a tamron but the couple "third party lens" i have had are Ok due to the price I paid for them but not nearly as well built as the canon...well the sigma i had never worked right actually but like i said it was cheap. so i might take a look at them up close if possible.

i would like a little more zoom at times ( not a lot of times but that depends on the shooter, just like if you take lots of family pics you might really like the wider end that i don't use tons)but will probably get the canon 70-300( or what ever is around when i save up my pennies)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

As is probably clear by now, better is too vague. The Canon has much better image quality. It has IS (although an older version of Canon's IS). It has a better focus mechanism. The Tamron has a better price and a better range. So what's more important to you - the price/range or the quality/IS/focus speed? Either lens is better depending on your priorities.

Neither is a particularly good sports lens. They'll work OK, but they are both slow and the Canon is too short. For small field sports and indoor sports, the 70-200 F/2.8 lenses are great. For large field sports with enough light, the Canon 100-400 lens is great. All of these lenses are quite expensive, bulky, and heavy though.

 

[Boss Hogg]

i would like a little more zoom at times)

I'd agree with you on this when using my Sigma. Just goes to show I suppose, whatever you have you always want more!

I'm not sure that the IS is such a big deal, I guess this will come down to how good the OP is at holding a lens steady. I've never had any trouble catching action at full zoom with my Sigma and it will be a similar weight. Also, on the XTi I've not had problems with focus, especially with it set in "servo" mode for focusing.

 

[tink4ever]

Again I thank everyone for answering my question. I have been on this board before and as you all can see I am still confused and trying to figure this camera thing out. I thank you and can't wait to learn to take great pictures.

 

[DVC Jen]

Again I thank everyone for answering my question. I have been on this board before and as you all can see I am still confused and trying to figure this camera thing out. I thank you and can't wait to learn to take great pictures.

LOL boy can I relate to that!

 

[extreme8]

Remember to come back and let us know which lens you decide to buy so that half of us can tell you it was the wrong choice.

 

[KaitlinsMom]

Remember to come back and let us know which lend you decide to buy so that half of us can tell you it was the wrong choice.

Thanks for my laugh this morning!!!!!

 

[jann1033]

Remember to come back and let us know which lend you decide to buy so that half of us can tell you it was the wrong choice.

now would anyone on here do that????