Am I over-thinking the lens thing?

[Master Mason]

Has anyone tried the Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD IF Macro? It seems like a great walkaround lens for under $500 but since it is under $500, is it any good?

Andy

I seam to remember something about Canons not auto focusing at greater than f/5.6 so check that out, other than that I don't know anything about that lens.

 

[jann1033]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_18_250.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309&sort=7&cat=43&page=1
truthfully, i don't think jen's idea is a bad one. even though the 28-135 is a little less zoom range, i would guess it might be a better lens, plus it might not be a bad reseller since it usually gets pretty good reviews when you want to upgrade( i know when i was considering selling copy #1 they usually went for $400+ on ebay which is more than i bought mine new for)
i'm hoping if i get a 30+d i'll like it more. right now it just is not as sharp as my 70-200 so it isn't my favorite lens to use.( it's not bad, just annoying if i want to crop and the sharpness isn't there as it is with my other lens) like i am sure i have said before, if i had it to do over( ) i'd get the 2 Ls ( 17-40 and 70-200 f4s which would end up being a little over $1000 total) and the 50 1.8 for lower light and be done with it( and the canon 100 macro...and the 1.4 kenko teleconverter....if you ever saw the movie the Jerk, when steve martin keeps saying "all i need is" as he picks up more and more stuff...that is me with lenses ) which is what i probably will eventually do after i get he body up grade, sell the 28-135 and my kit lens and what ever else i can scrounge up and get the 17-40 if it's still around.....then when i had a truck load of money dumped in my front yard upgrade to the 2.8s

 

[webshark3]

the Tamron 18-250, should be similar to the 18-200. Optically, it should be comparable to the kit lens. I do not know about it's overall performance.

That's not a negative. In good sunlight, my kit lens takes incredible photos.

 

[jann1033]

the Tamron 18-250, should be similar to the 18-200. Optically, it should be comparable to the kit lens. I do not know about it's overall performance.

That's not a negative. In good sunlight, my kit lens takes incredible photos.

actually it's rated better than the 18-200 which got iffy reviews.( think it must have been quality control issue as some loved it some hated it, which seems to be the case with lots of third party lenses anyway)

 

[handicap18]

Has anyone tried the Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD IF Macro? It seems like a great walkaround lens for under $500 but since it is under $500, is it any good?

Andy

The problem with these lenses is that it trys to do a lot of things and in reality it does, but it doesn't do them very well. They are great walk around lenses, but the f/stops are very limiting especially at the long end. Will have a hard time getting focus, its limiting to very bright light. See if they have any photos over at pixelpeeper.com that were taken with this lens.

I think that the Sigma 18-200 would be better because the new version, priced around the same as the Tamron you mention, has OS. OS is Sigma's version of VR/IS, Optical Stabilization. I believe it is getting better reviews that the first 18-200 that didn't have OS, but its been a while since I've checked into it.

Something to ponder.