I know you generally get what you pay for re: lenses

[goodgollycr]

But is that only if I'm willing to go into the canon L series? I'm looking at the canon ef-s 18-200 lens which is about $585. I could save 2 or 3 hundred by going with tamron or sigma. I can spend the extra money if it will really make a difference, but don't want to if the others are comparable.

The other option is to go with the t3i kit with 18-135mm.

Any advice here?

[jdepould]

Superzooms are expensive because they're complicated, not necessarily because they're good optically. At that level, many lenses have broadly similar optical performance.

[goodgollycr]

So you are saying that the tamron and sigma are just as good?

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by goodgollycr

So you are saying that the tamron and sigma are just as good?

The opposite, in fact.

[goodgollycr]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Superzooms are expensive because they're complicated, not necessarily because they're good optically. At that level, many lenses have broadly similar optical performance.

He said that super zooms are not necessarily good optically and that at that level they are broadly similar in optical performance.

I'm confused as to how that means the opposite. Or is it your opinion that the opposite is true?

Not trying to be difficult. Just trying to understand.

[scootermcq]

I'm with OS. I use Nikon, but I tried the Tamron and it did not hold a candle to the Nikon 18-200. If you know a good store, go in and do several shots with all 3 lenses, go home and look at them on the computer before you buy. I have done this, and it can really help with your purchase decisions

[Glenn72]

SLRGear compared the Canon lens to the Sigma, Tamron and even Nikon lens and they seemed to favor the Canon as an all around travel lens.

Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Hope this helps out in your decision.

[cyber3d]

They have an interesting review of those lens with lens data analysis and conclusions:

Canon Canon EF-S 18-200 mm F3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Sigma: Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

I have the 18-135 (kit lens). Not thrilling ... but adequate for my purposes. Eventually it will become a back up lens.

[Tzetsin]

I have plenty of experience with Canons 18-200mm ef-s lens. Do Not Buy this lens.

Its not bad optically, and the focal range is amazing, but the build quality as absolutely CRAP.

The zoom barrel is not very tight and will extend with nothing more than the force of gravity. There "is" a lock to keep it from doing this, but if your actually "using" the camera, the lock is very small and hard to get to, so you generally wouldnt lock it. Thus, the zoom barrel is almost perpetually extended. This is a problem because the inner zoom barrel is only attached with 3 small plastic pins. While extended any significant (read IN-significant) impact on the lens will break a pin and your lens is now a paper weight.

This isnt hearsay, I can show you "my" paperweight if you like.

I doubt that the 18-200mm lens is the only lens using these same 3 pins, so if i was you, I would put alot of consideration into how easily the zoom extends with the force of gravity before buying the lens. And dont say "I'm not worried, i treat my gear with great care!" because dude... nobody "means" to bump their equipment...

[kirbinster]

I'm with Scott, I have tried Sigma and Tamron and almost always sell them and go back to Nikon. The only Sigmas I like are their wide lenses. I had a 10-20mm and sold that when I got my D700 and got their 12-24 lens.