Kelly, Will, other experts re: Rebel lens choices, more ??s

[beach4fun]

Hey, y'all. I went shopping this weekend for lenses. I have the Digital Rebel and the 18-55 lens that came with the camera. I know you all have given awesome advice before, but I have another question and need a little more advice to make my decision. At the present time I can only afford to buy one additional lens for my camera, but would like one that can "do it all" at Disney and not have to change back and forth. My local camera shop recommended the Tamron 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 lens at $469. I had also been considering the Sigma 18-125 lens. Is there a Sigma 18-200? I don't want to get something that will not be good quality, because I understand that you get what you pay for, so what do you all recommend for my situation? I hate to keep asking so many questions, but I'm graduating from point-and-shoot and all this is new to me. Thanks for your patience.

 

[captaincrash]

I had that exact Tamaron 18-200. Sec wise it is awesome - and a popular photography review made it out to be a reasonable lense... but I had a terribly mixed bag of results. Sometimes the focus would be tack sharp and quite impressive - then at times it would actually miss the focus even tough it signaled a focus was achieved. I was perplexed and mused whether there might be some mysterious software interface issue. Elsewhere I read of other folks experiencing the exact same problem I was having. Within 3 weeks of buying the lense I got rid of it and bought a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. Not exactly a direct substitute - but that was the direction I took.

Here is an interesting review on the Tamron. It cites severe vingetting at 18mm and f3.5-4 plus extreme barrel distortion at 18mm (3.6%). Check out the review = plus examine the other reviews of lenses you might consider.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_18200_3563/index.htm

 

[beach4fun]

This is great information, although I need to do some more homework as some of these terms are confusing to me. Thank you!

 

[captaincrash]

Try checking Fred Miranda too - except the last time I looked there was nothing on the Tamron 18-200... but there is info on the Sigma 18-200 (I vaguely recollect). But the data here is nothing like the other site I referred above.

One thing I might add... having bought a powerful DSLR - try to INVEST in decent glass. The Tamron is a Digital only lense and cannot be used if you ever upgrade to a full sized sensor. I can comfortably predict that technology and value will not stand still - and someday soon we will get a shot at buying full frame sensors with large sensor counts that are noiseless with superfast arrays. Think ISO 6400 or maybe even 12800?!?!?! with the noiseless quality of today's ISO 200 and 400 sensors. Of course, this is simple speculation on my part - but just a few years ago 3 megapixels at ISO 200 was more or less state of the art! Now I would say my idea of an affordable state of the art is ISO 800 performances at 8 or 10 megapixels on the Nikons and Canon 30D DSLRs. Well - even in the absence of a 12,800 ISO noiseless sensor - a dirt cheap full frame 12 megapixel DSLR would be compelling to get if it were available. I can see the day when the 5D model is 4th generation from today with a price about 1/2 that of todays' price level. The 5D sample images look supremely exquisite. At about half it's current price I would be chomping at the prospect of buying one!

 

[WillCAD]

Sigma does indeed make an 18-200 lens to fit the Digital Rebels. I have never seen that lens, however, since my local camera shop does not stock Sigma lenses (I bought my 18-125 sight-unseen, on the strength of my previous experience with Sigma lenses).

Kelly ownes both the 18-125 and the 18-200 Sigmas and gave me enough info on both for me to choose the 18-125. I'll let her come into this thread later and tell you the differences - for your money, you might make the same decision I made, or you might be perfectly fine with the 18-200 instead.

 

[boBQuincy]

It all comes down to tradeoffs between quality, convenience, and the ever evil budget.

I prefer Canon's 'L' series lenses, very likely the finest available for your camera, with a price to match. To maintain 'L' quality Canon does not usually provide a zoom range beyond about 4:1. On exception, Canon does have a 'one size fits all' lens, their 28-300 L but it is not reported to be very good. All the 'L' series are designed for full frame cameras so there is no problem with upgrading.

Have lots of cash? Try Canon's 24-70 and 70-200, both in f2.8. Add the 16-35 for the wide end and you have a really nice setup, at a really high price.

Sigma's 18-125 is considered to be a good lens but image quality will not be up to 'L' levels. *However*, you probably would not notice any difference unless you used a tripod and were using the lens wide open. The convenience and price make it a very attractive option.

As expected the 18-200 lenses suffer from the wide zoom range but again the convenience is nice.

And one more thing, once you start down the dark path to more lenses, forever will it dominate your destiny!


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

For a walkaround lens, I strongly recommend Sigma 18-125. Yes, 18-200 is available, but at a 'price'

The price for the additional reach:

1. about $100 difference
2. more barrel and pincushion distortion
3. more colour abberation at the extreme corners of the pictures, especially in the wide area
4. from 125-200, the aperture is f/6.3, unless the situation is bright, that range becomes useless.

I personally tend to take more pictures in the dark or low-light area, having f/6.3 is absolutely useless. I can't stand the super distortion that comees with the 18-200, so 18-125 is the best compromise for me.