I bought a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 for evening events but I need a longer range for everday shooting. I need a single lens with a minimum 18mm on one end and and 200-300mm on the other end around $500 or less. I'm looking at the Sigma 18-200mm or the Tamron 18-250mm. This particular tamron had more recommendations on fredmiranda.com. I cannot find a direct comparison but in comparisons of images of the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses, the Sigma looks better. I prefer a faster lense but they all seem about the same spped. Any advice?

Well, since you already have 17-70mm covered I don't see a point in covering that entire range again. My suggestion is the 70-200/4L. It's about $500 and is one of Canon's top lenses.

For reviews of these lenses, look at photozone.de--Klaus has looked at them all. After taking a look at the reviews, I feel even more that the Canon is a much better choice.

Thanks, I look at photozone.de
My 17-70 does not have enough range for a single lens, I need 18-200 for a walk about lens so I can just carry one lens.

i think it is really difficult (and thus expensive) to make a lens that covers that wide range and at the same time fast. that's why it is always a compromise between reach and speed. the sigma that you have is not too fast at 70mm; it goes down to f/4.5

if you want fast lenses:
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS)
canon 70-200 f/2.8
those two lenses will cover you from 17mm to 200mm

if your budget is around 500, then i would go with claudermilk's suggestion.


here is review of tamorn 18-250
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...anon/index.htm

and here is for sigma 18-200
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...63os/index.htm

Originally Posted by kitkatkaplan Thanks, I look at photozone.de My 17-70 does not have enough range for a single lens, I need 18-200 for a walk about lens so I can just carry one lens.

Conventional wisdom says that 11x zooms are compromises (lots of them). But, that really doesn't help you much.

I found this site that has links to a number of reviews. Thought it might help you out a bit with reviews of the Sigma. One plus on the Sigma side of the equation is that you can get it with Optical Stabilization (OS).

And, for what it's worth, Pop Photo has a review here.

Personally, I like claudermilk's suggestion - invest in the 70-200 f/4L. I really, really don't think you will regret it. Granted, you will be carrying a second lens, but .... you really can't beat the quality of the photos you can get with any one of the EF 70-200 series lenses.

Originally Posted by claudermilk Well, since you already have 17-70mm covered I don't see a point in covering that entire range again. My suggestion is the 70-200/4L. It's about $500 and is one of Canon's top lenses. For reviews of these lenses, look at photozone.de--Klaus has looked at them all. After taking a look at the reviews, I feel even more that the Canon is a much better choice.

For a walk about lens I plan to get either a Canon 17-55mm IS, or the 24-70mm L. I received the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS for Christmas, and I also have the f/4 IS on hand because I'm trying to decide whether I really need the 2.8 or not. Both lenses are phenomenal, photos are crystal clear.

Originally Posted by Rockporters For a walk about lens I plan to get either a Canon 17-55mm IS, or the 24-70mm L. I received the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS for Christmas, and I also have the f/4 IS on hand because I'm trying to decide whether I really need the 2.8 or not. Both lenses are phenomenal, photos are crystal clear.

the prices are also phenomenal for those lenses...

Originally Posted by eyusuf the prices are also phenomenal for those lenses...

Sorry, I posted in the midst of lens testing and my point wasn't clear... If I had a $500 budget, and wanted more reach, I'd keep the Sigma and add the 70-200mm. Any of Canon's 70-200mm lenses are a great choice.

Originally Posted by Rockporters For a walk about lens I plan to get either a Canon 17-55mm IS, or the 24-70mm L. I received the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS for Christmas, and I also have the f/4 IS on hand because I'm trying to decide whether I really need the 2.8 or not. Both lenses are phenomenal, photos are crystal clear.

Just a short hi-jack here...

I have the 17-55, I have played with the 24-70, and have the 24-105 f/4L. For me the 17-55 is a little short for a walk around and the 24-70 is a might heavy for an all-day excursion. Again, for me the 24-105 is a very nice compromise (would be better if it were 17-105 ) and the IS make the f/4 not a very heavy burden.

I guess I was not clear. I'm looking for ONE lens to carry around with a 18-200/250mm range. I agree on a 2 lens solution for quality work but I keep missing shots because I don't have the right lens on at the time. So these are the two lenses I am looking at. Any feedback on these lenses? Thanks

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

I think folks are trying to steer you a bit into a new direction! The point being that even if you have the "ideal" range of 18-200, you may still miss the shot because of compromises brought on by that type of lens. If you're sure that those are compromises you're willing to make, then you can ignore our advice and get the range you feel you need. I think a lot of us have been in that same position...wanting that great range, but realized we didn't want to give up certain things (speed, sharpness, accuracy, low distortion being a few). We're just not wanting you to be disappointed, so we're sharing another option...one that has the compromise of shorter zoom lengths (and maybe price), but not much else.

Hope that makes some sense. And I hope someone does chime in about one of the lenses you're asking about! My brother is considering one and I'm curious too!

Originally Posted by kitkatkaplan I bought a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 for evening events but I need a longer range for everday shooting. I need a single lens with a minimum 18mm on one end and and 200-300mm on the other end around $500 or less. I'm looking at the Sigma 18-200mm or the Tamron 18-250mm. This particular tamron had more recommendations on fredmiranda.com. I cannot find a direct comparison but in comparisons of images of the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses, the Sigma looks better. I prefer a faster lense but they all seem about the same spped. Any advice?

1) High-quality
2) Extreme range
3) $500

Those terms seem to be mutually exclusive.

The most extreme range in the Canon lineup is the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, but it's not cheap and not without compromise.

I suppose the best overall, but highly compromised, single lens in the range you wish is the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS, which is the focal length range and the price you mention, so I bet you just want to know if the quality is sufficient?

The Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS is a highly compromised design which seems to work pretty well at the extremes of the range but needs small apertures for best results. While the O.S. helps with still life, this is not a low-light lens. Plan on high ISOs, (relatively) long shutter speeds and little use for bokeh with that lens.

Your best strategy is to do what claudermilk suggested and just use two lenses. Unless you are in a dusty or rainy environment there is little to fear from changing a lens in the field or on the go. Even then, there are simple methods to prevent any damage or difficulty relating to the camera. The combination of your existing Sigma 17-70mm, f2.8-f4.5 and a Canon 70-200mm, f4L is a great travel kit and very high quality and within your price range.

Originally Posted by kitkatkaplan I guess I was not clear. I'm looking for ONE lens to carry around with a 18-200/250mm range. I agree on a 2 lens solution for quality work but I keep missing shots because I don't have the right lens on at the time. So these are the two lenses I am looking at. Any feedback on these lenses? Thanks

Between those two choices, and within your price range, I would strongly suggest the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS because at longer focal lengths you need either image stabilization or a tripod and if you are not looking to change lenses, you are probably not looking to set up a tripod.

Decent reviews of the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS are at:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...63os/index.htm
http://www.photodo.com/topic_305.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-dc-os-af.html

Originally Posted by kitkatkaplan I guess I was not clear. I'm looking for ONE lens to carry around with a 18-200/250mm range. I agree on a 2 lens solution for quality work but I keep missing shots because I don't have the right lens on at the time. So these are the two lenses I am looking at. Any feedback on these lenses? Thanks

I guess part of the question is if you can get any decent pictures with the lens at full length w/out either IS or good lighting.

Which'll limit the conditions you can use the lens while walking about.

I've seen 28-135 IS lenses in your price range, maybe that would suit for what you're looking for.

I'd recommend the Sigma 18-200mm OS over the non OS Sigma version and Tamron 18-200 or 18-250mm.

From what I've seen, it seems that the Sigma OS has the best optics out of the 18-200mm range zooms from the third party makers and with OS, you get more versatility, espeically in low light or using the lens at the 200mm range to stabilize your shots.

Having said all that, I'd stick with two lenses like a 17-70 with a Tamron 55-200. The Tamron 55-200 seems to have excellent optics, is cheap, and light. Optically a Sigma 17-70 and a Tamron 55-200 may give you more flexibility than a single 18-200mm lens.

I can empathize with KitKat. I use a reb XT with the sigma 17-70mm and I find the sigma to be an awesome lens on this camera. I don't like carrying a ton of equipment all the time either. The promise of an 11x -14x all-in-one zoom is indeed attractive. The choices are limited and KitKat knows the choices. I think a decision on a single lens will come down to two models and whether image stabilization is most important (Sigma 18-200 IS) or whether lens resolution across the zoom range is more important (new Tamron 18-250). Both lenses require the user to accept some specific compromises.

I have used a Tamron 18-200 a little bit and certainly prefer its physical size for walking about. For a single lens choice, I think mine would be the tamron 18-250 because of its size and resolution figures posted in the photozone reviews. So, I fall on the side of better resolution. Just be prepared to carry a tripod and become cozy with "custom function 7" (mirror lockup) for several types of shots.

In the two lens argument, there is also another choice to consider. That is the Canon EF70-300mm IS. It generally can be had for less than $500 on-line, posts excellent resolution figures and is Canon, so no compatability issues with the camera. Would pair up nicely with the 17-70 too.

There's a philosophical difference going on here. Many of us--those of use steering you towards a 2-lens solution--prefer to use multiple lenses that are more specialized & higher-quality in their range, while a few including the OP are trying to get everything in a single lens.

IMHO a large part of the reason for buying into a DSLR setup is the ability to swap lenses to put the best solution for the desired image in front of the sensor. I personally feel if a single all-purpose lens is desired, then a P&S of some sort is probably a better choice.

I currently have a 3-lens lineup to cover 12mm through 200mm and can usually get away with taking only one or two lenses with me. Yes, I occasionally miss a shot here & there, but the other 98% of the time I have a much better lens at hand to get the job done. There are also the odd occasions where I find myself swapping back & forth, but again that's rare & I now have a better bag setup to deal with that (TT modulus belt).

I doubt I'll change anyone's mind, and am not really looking to; I'm just pointing out why I'm suggesting a 2-lens lineup rather than a single lens. Good luck in your search.

Originally Posted by Scott_Quier Just a short hi-jack here... I have the 17-55, I have played with the 24-70, and have the 24-105 f/4L. For me the 17-55 is a little short for a walk around and the 24-70 is a might heavy for an all-day excursion. Again, for me the 24-105 is a very nice compromise (would be better if it were 17-105 ) and the IS make the f/4 not a very heavy burden.

Hi Scott, I think about the 24-105L occasionally. Before upgrading to the 40D from 20D, I was using a 28-80, 75-300, and 17-40L. Rarely using the 28-80. For the interim I've used a 28-135, which hasn't been wide or long enough. Because of this, I've been leaning towards the 17-55, but anytime I see a photo from the 24-70 I sway. It might also be beneficial to have a 2.8 lens, especially since I'm pretty sure the 70-200L f/2.8 IS is going back in favor of the f4L IS. But I love the photo quality I see from the 24-70... So many choices .