Zoom Lens for Canon

[Inspeqtor]

I was just reading a review at DPReview on the Canon 18-200 lens which overall said it is a very good lens. The review also said this:

Consequently, potential buyers may struggle to find any obvious advantage over Tamron's recently announced 18-270mm F3.5-6.3Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro, which sports a longer zoom range and Tamron's own optical stabilization system.

I have been saving up my $$$ for possibly the 18-200 IS or the 70-300 IS. Now I am wondering if the Tamron is a good enough lens to give me good quality photos. With such a long range from 18 to 270, would there be any problems with this lens? Any possible distortion? I also found Tamron also makes an 18-250 which could be a nice lens, but I am not sure if the 18-250 has a built in optical stabilization system. Does anyone here know what the code is on the Tamron lenses that says it is a stabilized lens? Would the 18-250 be a better quality than the 18-270? Or should I stick with Canon all the way?

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Thank you all :)

[Michel B]

Here is another comparison:
http://www.photozone.de/reviews

[Codebreaker]

Charles....


I'm also shopping for a higher end zoom lens to compliment my Sigma 17-70mm. I've read many reviews - enough to be totally confused - but one underlying issue that sticks in my mind is that these so called Super-Zooms are trying to be all things to all people and as such a compromise in IQ results somewhere in their range.

I've read some good reports on the Canon 70-300 IS.

Currently there are three choices on my list:-

Canon 100-400mm IS L
Canon 70-200mm F4 IS L
Sigma 150-500mm OS

While the Sigma gets some good reviews its very heavy in comparison to the other two.

The IQ on the Canon 70-200mm F4 IS L is supposed to be superb but its top end is 200mm - which may not be enough for me.

The Canon 100-400mm IS L seems to fit my needs - good IQ, good range but its also the most expensive of my choices.

A dilema!!!

I haven't read about the Tamron but I think I'll take a look now you mention it. There's also a Sigma 120-400mm OS but I can't find any decent reviews on it yet.

I'd be interested to hear how you get on.

Colin

[lowbone]

I got the Canon 18-200mm lens with my new 50D camera about a month ago. I already own several lenses that cover all focal lengths from 17 to 600mm and the 18-200mm lens was purchasd for travel or walking around situations where I don't feel like carrying around a bag full of camera stuff. Any lens that has a zoom range of 10X or 11X is not going to be as good as say a 2X or 3X zoom but the 18-200 is surprisingly good for what it is. Yes, there is some barrel distortion on the wide end as there is on any lens of this type and a little pin cushion distortion as you go longer but overall I am pleased with this lens. It is the reverse of the Nikon 18-200 in that it seems to,be sharpest on the long end and the Nikon entry seems to be sharpest on the wide end. The bulid quality seems good, not as goood as an L but of course the L series 28-300 zoom costs allot more and also weighs in at about four pounds. Codebreakers choices for zoom are all good. I have both the 100--400 and the 70-200 but of course you don't get as much range with those lenses. I have owned a few Sigma and Tamron lenses in the past and have had various troubles with all of them and especially with their respective repair departments taking forever to fix them. Maybe it was just some bad luck but I have avoided these companies since then. If a long range zoom is what you are looking for I would recommend the Canon efs 18-200mm lens.

[Chuck S.]

Charles, I've shied away from a "one-zoom solution" because of their (historic) tendencies to have barrel distortion at one end, pincushioning at the other end, softness in some ranges, and chromatic aberration. I've stuck with the solution of multiple zooms to cover the full range, but that's expensive and unwieldy. The bag of lenses is heavy, and my tendency lately has been to leave it on the shelf and take my point & shoot instead...:o

Having said that, the super-zooms seem to be getting better and better. The test, however, will come with the lens on your camera, in your hands. It would be nice to find a place that would rent you the lens so you could test-drive it. That way, you could answer questions not only about image quality but general handling as well.

Good luck on your quest!

[msbrad]

I recently purchased the 28-135 IS, and have the 70-300 IS, so chances are...I won't be getting the 18-200 or 270.
I will enjoy following those of you who do use this lens, and see the photos.
m

[David Asch]

I had the Tamron 18-200. It wasn't too bad but I did get a lot of aberration and the images were probably not as sharp as they could have been. The one bonus you have with these lenses is they have a much shorter minimum focus so make reasonably good macro lenses.

[Inspeqtor]

Thank you everyone for your input. You have helped me and confused me :o
Most of the confusion is in the fact I really do not understand all of the technicalities of lens 'talk', and I knew this would probably happen! Barrel distortion, if I understand it correctly, the photo bulges out from the center. Pin cushioning I think is the opposite, it gets thinner in the center.
I really do not know what chromatic aberration is.

lowbone has had bad luck with Tamron and Sigma lenses, so maybe I should stick with Canon. On the other hand I am sure there are people out there that have never had to return a lens for repair and would stand by those brand names.

Michel, Thank you for the link to the reviews. I am sure that will help in many ways.

Chuck and Michelle, you are both making me rethink this idea. What Michelle has sounds like a good combination, the 28-135 and the 70-300. Those 2 lenses would be better than what I currently own, in that I (probably) would not have to switch lenses as quickly as I do now and perhaps would not get the distortion as noticeably as the 18-270 (might) get. I have not yet been able to find any reviews on the Tamron 18-270 probably because it is yet too new.

Oh no! I just now saw on Amazon there is also a Tamron 28-300 VC (Vibration Compensation) lens!

Decisions, decisions.....:o

[w7vp]

I am very happy with my Tamron 18-300 lens which is in the same f-stop range. Having said that I also have the Canon 28-105 IS lens and the Canon 100-400 IS lens so I use the Tamron lens only as a utility lens when I am not trying for more perfection. In that congtext i have found it to be a very reliable an duseful lens. My F/2.8 lens is a Sigma 70-200 non-stabilized lens and I use is in low light conditions usually at higher shutter speeds. I notice that the use of the stabilization feature is relatively low for me since I am often using a tripod or higher shutter speeds anyway. For example I shot my daughters Halloween party at school the other day with the Canon 28-105 IS lens on a tripod with the IS ferature turned off.

I just got the Canon 50D so I will be trying my faster lenses at higher ISOs as soon as I get the chance

Bill

[Michel B]

About lens tests:
One thing to keep in mind: barrel distortion and vignetting are easily corrected even in Elements (from version 5). With a plug-in like ptlens, the lens is automatically recognized from the exif data in most current cases; it can also handle chromatic aberration. Note that purple fringing is another problem which originates more in the sensor than in the lens.
Another question is center and corner sharpness: for a general purpose lens, if you shoot landscape or architecture, corner sharpness is important. For scenes with people, flowers or animals, for macro shots it may not be at all.
Lens stabilization is important for long focals, but that is very dependent of your shooting style.
I had once a small program to analyze my exif data and give me statistics about the percentage of shots taken at different focal lengths (worked also on speed, aperture, ISO...) That can help you to optimize your choice of lens according to your own style.
Edit: I think it was called exposureplot.

[Codebreaker]

I'll disagree slightly with what Michel says.

While some lens issues can be corrected within programs like Photoshop and Lightroom, this all adds up to extra work that you need to do.

Also, its my understanding and experience that while the sensor may contribute to Chromatic Abberation due to the filters over each Pixel, the majority of the problem lies with the lens.

This was certainly my experience with the Canon Kit Lens 18-55 EF-S (I think). When I swapped to the Sigma 17-70 as my standard lens, CA never became an issue.

Colin

[Michel B]

Different experience...
I rarely shoot architecture, even though nearly half of my shots are taken at 17mm with my sigma 17-70mm or at 35mm equivalent with my G6. With wide angle shots of people, most of the time I'll add barrel distortion to avoid faces in the corners to be heavily distorted. A lens corrected for distortion in architecture would not be a general usage one. Furthermore, generally with architecture, you have plenty of time to change lens. When I have to shoot such scenes, I use ptlens which makes the correction automatically for both lens. If this was a major concern for me, I'd certainly invest in a wide angle specifically chosen for distortion correction; the tests at photozone are excellent guides for this.
Generally, I have no problem with chromatic aberrations, although I have found it very visible in pictures downloaded from the Web (lately with 50D pictures with the 18-200 zoom). This kind of problem requires ptlens for Elements users (this adjustment is not available in the Elements ACR version).
Purple fringing, whatever its cause, lens or sensor, is much more linked with a given type of camera (my wife's Sony is a typical example). Correcting it (rather hiding it) is possible in post process, but may be time consuming. With my Sigma and 20D, there may be a slight problem in 1 % of my shots at most, a little more with the G6 and maybe 3% with the Sony. This is because my second type of photography, after people, is landscapes.

[Inspeqtor]

I just ordered the Canon 70-300 f4/5.6 IS USM lens from Amazon! I ordered it less than 12 hours ago, and already it has been shipped! It should be here Tuesday or Wednesday :)

I decided to get the 70-300 first because currently my lenses only go to 200. I am hoping I can save up enough $$ to possibly get the 18-200 sometime next year, along with a speedlite hotshoe flash, battery grip, a 1.4 telextender, maybe the 28-135 lens...... well you know the story! :eek:

[BruceM]

I just ordered the Canon 70-300 f4/5.6 IS USM lens from Amazon! I ordered it less than 12 hours ago, and already it has been shipped! It should be here Tuesday or Wednesday :)

I decided to get the 70-300 first because currently my lenses only go to 200. I am hoping I can save up enough $$ to possibly get the 18-200 sometime next year, along with a speedlite hotshoe flash, battery grip, a 1.4 telextender, maybe the 28-135 lens...... well you know the story! :eek:

You'll be pleased with your choice, I have the same lens except went all out and got the DO model. I'm very happy with the results, and have even had success with hand held shots. I usually brace my elbows against my body or a fence or railing, but even without any support have had no noticeable movement in my images.

[ricklepage]

Colin:

I own the 100-400 L, and agree that it is a great lens. It's heavy, and sometimes a bit too hard to wield, but that extra oomph is nice to have.

That said, a number of years ago, I bought the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and fell in love with it: it's a nice compromise of focal length over size/weight and takes great pix. Unfortunately, it got stolen, and I haven't had a chance to replace it, but it was one of my favorite lenses.

Anyone who gets it though should make sure they get the IS version; the non-stabilized model just isn't worth it. The number of shots that got saved by the stabilizer made the extra $$ all worth it.

Rick

[Inspeqtor]

You'll be pleased with your choice, I have the same lens except went all out and got the DO model. I'm very happy with the results, and have even had success with hand held shots. I usually brace my elbows against my body or a fence or railing, but even without any support have had no noticeable movement in my images.

Bruce,

I am sure I will love the new lens. I had seen the DO lens on Amazon. I do not know what diffractive optical means, but I am assuming with the higher price it must be better glass than the one I ordered. looking at the pictures of the 2 lenses on Amazon, the DO lens LOOKS much shorter in length at the 70mm setting. According to the stats, the Technical Details says they are both the same length at 5.6 inches, but under Product Details the DO lens is 7.2 inches, and mine is 7.8 inches. I will measure mine when I get it. I don't understand what the 5.6 inches is referring to, or the 7.2/7.8 inches is referring to. Also the DO lens is 4 pounds, and mine is 22.2 oz. which is a big difference. There is also of course a big difference in $$.

I also odered a UV Filter, and the Canon ET-65B Lens Hood. I have never owned a lens hood before, so this will be a new experience for me.

[BruceM]

DO - Diffractive Optics - new technology that keeps a long zoom lens shorter with the same zoom. Same glass, new technology. :)

I have a lens hood for mine, as well as for my 17-85. I like to use the hood outside on bright days and in bad weather.

[Derry]

If you want to test any lens you have here is more than sufficient data on how to,,

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html

Derry

[Inspeqtor]

Derry,

When I first read just your post, I thought, yeah, I would like to test my new lens when I get it.

When I clicked on the link you provided, and scrolled through the page, I thought "This is way beyond my knowledge. I have no idea what all this is"

Do you know what part of that I would use if I were to try and test my new lens?