What lens works best

HalAdams · Aug 30, 2014

You are tempting me! I like the idea of the lens going down to 16mm.
What is the catch though? These are two extremes packed into a single unit.
Admittedly I am going back many years, but I seem to remember Tamron not having the best reputation for quality - is this the case?

Ido · Aug 30, 2014

HalAdams said:
You are tempting me! I like the idea of the lens going down to 16mm.
What is the catch though? These are two extremes packed into a single unit.
Admittedly I am going back many years, but I seem to remember Tamron not having the best reputation for quality - is this the case?

It's all a matter of compromise. Packing such a big zoom range in a lens is tough. Even 18-200mm isn't easy. And these lenses are targeted towards the traveling consumer, who needs a compact lens that's inexpensive. So quality is compromised, there's no getting around it.
But it's also there with those 18-200mm lenses. It's minimized in higher-grade lenses, like Canon and Nikon's 35mm frame-compatible 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 superzooms, but they aren't very well suited for use on a camera with a smaller sensor (APS-C), as the shortest focal length you'll have is already in the standard territory, not wide angle.

Tamron is quite a reputable brand nowadays. Their 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses (both f/2.8 with optical image stabilization) are at the very least a close match to the Canon and Nikon offerings, which are over $500 more expensive, in some cases even a $1,000 price difference. But you shouldn't compare brands - compare models instead. Read reviews.

HalAdams · Aug 31, 2014

I think I will stick with 18-250 as it allows me to also get a wide angle lens in my budget. There is so little difference is the Tamron 16-300 to justify it.

If you had two lens in front of you, both in mint condition, one a Sigma 18-250 and the other a Tamron 18-270, both the same price with 6 months warranty - which would be the better one to go for..?

TCampbell · Aug 31, 2014

There are always trade-offs. The point of being able to remove one lens and attach another is that depending on what you plan to shoot, there's probably a lens for THAT situation which is more optimal than the rest. No lens can be best at everything.

So there are these "super zoom" lenses with dramatic (more than 10x) zoom range. E.g. an 18-200mm or (which is roughly 11x) or even an 18-270mm. But the downside is that it's very difficult to optimize optics for such an ambitious zoom range. The optical qualities of the lenses with less ambitious zoom ranges generally always beats the super-zooms. Depending on what you're shooting and how you display your images, you may not be able to notice the difference so easily.

I think the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is a pretty good "all around" lens. It's not as ambitious with it's zoom range, but it also doesn't compromise nearly as much on it's optical quality.