Image stabilization versus extra reach

[Gill_L]

I am looking for a walkabout lens for my rebel XTi. My budget is around $450.
Right now I'm looking at the Tamron 18-250mm and the Sigma 18-200mm OS. Do I sacrifice the extra 50mm that the tamron has for optical stabilization?

Thanks

Gill

 

[DVC Jen]

I am looking for a walkabout lens for my rebel XTi. My budget is around $450.
Right now I'm looking at the Tamron 18-250mm and the Sigma 18-200mm OS. Do I sacrifice the extra 50mm that the tamron has for optical stabilization?

Thanks

Gill

have you considered the Canon 28-135 IS lens. It is the lens I use more than any other and rarely feel like I need more zoom.

 

[jann1033]

i use my 28-135 is as a walkaround but use my 70-200 lots ( it's really my fav. lens) the problem for me would be at 250 you are getting into that gray area with shutter speed always fast enough to cancel out lens movement( since it's a 1.6 crop you really need to be over 400)....i would love the extra reach but probably rarely use it since i 'd have to use a tripod or monopod( but my hands are shaky so maybe you would have better results). all that aside, i'd go with which ever has the better rep for sharpness and/or larger apeture first then probably get the is if both are close in those categories
what do you want to take also? i love nature photo.and closeups so that is why i really like the 200 end. if you would rarely use that range, it's not worth it to you.
you can see the difference between the focal lengths here
http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

 

[ericamcl]

have you considered the Canon 28-135 IS lens. It is the lens I use more than any other and rarely feel like I need more zoom.

I just got the Canon 28-135 IS lens. I was considering one with more reach (the 300) but after talking to a few friends that are more "experienced" than I am it was determined that the 135 was better for everyday / walkaround use.
Beachcamera.com was reasonably priced on it.
Can't wait to use it w/ my XTi for our trip in March!

 

[Anewman]

IMO you are not only sacrificing reach, going with such a large focal range you would also be sacrificing optical quality and speed(focus and aperture). Not saying that the lenses are not decent, but it is all a compromise in which you need to decide what is the most important.

 

[Gill_L]

I enjoy nature photography, our local zoo is a favorite haunt of mine and that is one of the main reasons for wanting a little more zoom. I also like to take candid photos of my kids and I love macro work too.

Most of my photos are posted to my blog, I'm in the process of sorting them into albums, so bear with me!!

Gill

 

[ukcatfan]

First, you should stop thinking in terms of zoom. Think in terms of focal length. Zoom means nothing without knowing the focal lengths. You would be much better off optically if you went with a lens that does not go wide. A walkabout lens and nature photography sort of conflict each other. For nature shooting, look for something that starts in the 70-100mm range and goes to the 200-300mm range (70mm to 200mm is not even a 3x zoom). If it falls in your budget, look for something that has a wider aperture as well (i.e. f/4 or smaller through the entire range). Zoos can be somewhat low light due to shading for the animals. Something that is widest at around f/5.6 just might not be wide enough to get your shutter speed up. Also, since you plan on shooting subjects that do not move much, having IS might help. If you are shooting something like sports, then your shutter speed is already going to be fast enough that IS is taken out of the picture. Also consider using a tripod or monopod.

Kevin