Help with choosing new lens

[Dippy Dawg]

We are planning a trip for November of this year and before that we would like to get a new lens for our camera. We have a Canon Rebel XTi, with the standard 18-55mm lens and a Promaster 70-300mm lens. Neither one of these lenses have any image stabilizer and we are tired of changing out the lenses. We have a budget of under $600 for a new lens and have narrowed it down to the Sigma 18-200mm and the Tamron 28-300mm, both with image stabilization (OS for Sigma and VC for Tamron). We like the wide angle of the Sigma and the long focal length of the Tamron. This will be our main lens for the camera, not just for Disney trips. Would what we gain in the 18-28 range offset what we lose in the 200-300 range if we get the Sigma and vice versa for the Tamron? We would like to solicit any comments or experiences that anyone may have regarding these lenses or setups. Thanks.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

We are planning a trip for November of this year and before that we would like to get a new lens for our camera. We have a Canon Rebel XTi, with the standard 18-55mm lens and a Promaster 70-300mm lens. Neither one of these lenses have any image stabilizer and we are tired of changing out the lenses. We have a budget of under $600 for a new lens and have narrowed it down to the Sigma 18-200mm and the Tamron 28-300mm, both with image stabilization (OS for Sigma and VC for Tamron). We like the wide angle of the Sigma and the long focal length of the Tamron. This will be our main lens for the camera, not just for Disney trips. Would what we gain in the 18-28 range offset what we lose in the 200-300 range if we get the Sigma and vice versa for the Tamron? We would like to solicit any comments or experiences that anyone may have regarding these lenses or setups. Thanks.

The biggest difference I think you'll see is in the zoom... the wide angle is only the difference in 27mm vs 42mm (35mm terms) which isn't as much as the 300mm vs 450mm (35mm terms) at the other extreme. I bought a 28-300mm before the 18-200mm even existed so for me it wasn't a choice between the two, it was simply the best option I had to get one lens that would allow my wife to have one camera and not jack around with changing lenses.

You should realize that either way you go it is a compromise from the best choice of a good prime.... also know that the 28-300 is a heavy lens, it also suffers from lens creep.... and because it isn't a particular fast lens it doesn't autofocus very well in low light at full zoom... That said... because your camera likely came with a 18-55 or 18-70 lens, you could always use that lens in the event you needed a wider angle. If you were going to be shooting things inside and not outside go for the 18-200... if you plan on doing more outside get the 28-300.... in either case get ready for expensive filters because both take 62mm filters that aren't cheap.

Oh... one last thinge.. expect some distortion at the extremes of both lenses. If that is going to be a problem for you then you should probably get the 18-200 as DxO Optics Pro has software that can eliminate it from pictures taken with that lens... they haven't released a module for the 28-300 yet.

 

[NikonJim]

18-200 offers great range

I have a Nikon 18-200 that offers great range for a walk about lens. It stays on my camera about 95% of the time. Remember, with the camera that you have the range will be similar to a 28-300 on a 35 mm film camera. I find that I shoot more in the wide range than I do the telephoto range. While I am not familiar with the sigma 18-200, I do have their 50-150 f2.8 and the quality is good for the price of the lens. If you can get to a store where you can do a side by side comparison, you might find one that will feel better on the camera than the other. Hope this helps.

 

[JROK]

I'd go for the 18-200 as well. The only time you'd really need a zoom longer than like 135mm is if you're taking photos during a show or at DAK. Other than that you're up close with your subject.

I use a 24-70 as my walk around lens and it's great, but sometimes I wish I had a 16-35 or something too.

 

[scorp111]

We are planning a trip for November of this year and before that we would like to get a new lens for our camera. We have a Canon Rebel XTi, with the standard 18-55mm lens and a Promaster 70-300mm lens. Neither one of these lenses have any image stabilizer and we are tired of changing out the lenses. We have a budget of under $600 for a new lens and have narrowed it down to the Sigma 18-200mm and the Tamron 28-300mm, both with image stabilization (OS for Sigma and VC for Tamron). We like the wide angle of the Sigma and the long focal length of the Tamron. This will be our main lens for the camera, not just for Disney trips. Would what we gain in the 18-28 range offset what we lose in the 200-300 range if we get the Sigma and vice versa for the Tamron? We would like to solicit any comments or experiences that anyone may have regarding these lenses or setups. Thanks.

I would go with the 18-200 as well, for two reasons:

1. Sigma makes a better lens than Tamron IMO, and in most reviews
2. With the 1.6 factor of the XTI, the 28-300 starts out at around a 45mm equivalent. Which is a bit long for my liking.

My walkaround lens for my Xti is the 17-85mm with IS, and I like the width I can get, especially for landscape or panoramic shots.