Getting new lenses. Canon or Tamron?

prophet007 · Nov 30, 2011

Hi there! I am thinking of upgrading my lens, would like to get some sort of travel lens. I take mostly photos of buildings, landscapes and sometime potraits.

These are what I have in mind:

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

Tamron 18-270 PZD

I would like to hear some personal opinion for those who have these lens and whether they are worth it or not.

By the way, I am using a Canon EOS 550D. Or do you guys think I should upgrade my camera body first? :lol:

Thanks everyone!

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Nov 30, 2011

The 70-200 F4L is the best lens in that group. The other wouldn't even come close. Yes they have a wider zoom range, but that comes at the cost of image quality. Many focal lengths in that zoom range suffer as a result. The 70-200 will provide better color, contrast and sharpness than those other lenses. There is also the Canon 55-250 IS which I hear is very good for its price if you want to save some money. There is a $75 rebate at bhphoto.com on the Canon 70-200 f/4L.

memento · Nov 30, 2011

IMO - 70-200 is too long for buildings and landscape.

If you're mostly taking pictures of buildings and landscape you should be looking at 'ultra' wide angle lenses.

I have a 17-55 that I use most of the time and love it but for landscape 17mm isn't wide enough for a crop sensor.
I'm currently shopping for a 10-22.

thereyougo! · Nov 30, 2011

memento said:
IMO - 70-200 is too long for buildings and landscape.If you're mostly taking pictures of buildings and landscape you should be looking at 'ultra' wide angle lenses.I have a 17-55 that I use most of the time and love it but for landscape 17mm isn't wide enough for a crop sensor.I'm currently shopping for a 10-22.

I disagree. I'm using 400mm for some landscapes. It all depends on the perspective. Telephotos can work very well for landscapes

Nikon_Josh · Nov 30, 2011

Your better off getting a 70-200 and a 10-22 or Sigma 10-20. They will fulfil your needs by the sounds of it. And yes it is true, that telephotos are great for landscapes when used properly. Ofcourse a telephoto gives a very different (Compression) perspective to a wide angle lens for landscapes so it makes it a very useful tool for landscapes!

memento · Nov 30, 2011

well, thereyougo! proof everyone has an opinion.

chaosrealm93 · Nov 30, 2011

i would get the 70-200

MLeeK · Nov 30, 2011

I'd skip both of the 18-whatever's. The quality on them will make you really sad when you compare it to the 70-200.

memento · Nov 30, 2011

ftr - i have a 70-200. without a doubt it is far superior to the other mentioned lenses... but good luck taking pictures of buildings with that thing. unless you're trying to peep into an individual window of the buildings.
i have a hard time framing buildings using a 17mm lens.

this is all assuming you're not taking pictures of buildings that are a mile away.

same with the landscape.
assuming you're not framing a mountain peek a mile a way, wider is better.

my dad really likes his 15-85. he's not a pixel peeper though..

prophet007 · Nov 30, 2011

Hey guys! Thanks a lot for the advices and opinions. I am actually very interested in the 70-200. But reading some of the reviews make me think twice again. Also I did a little research on the 15-85, which I found out it is a very good lens as well. So right now, my choices have been narrowed down to 70-200 & 15-85. But I think that the size of 15-85 makes it a better chioce for travellers. Is it correct to say that? ( I havent been to the store to check out the actual lenses)

gsgary · Nov 30, 2011

I will give you a clue one of the lenses is great the other 2 are not great

thereyougo! · Dec 1, 2011

prophet007 said:
Hey guys! Thanks a lot for the advices and opinions. I am actually very interested in the 70-200. But reading some of the reviews make me think twice again. Also I did a little research on the 15-85, which I found out it is a very good lens as well. So right now, my choices have been narrowed down to 70-200 & 15-85. But I think that the size of 15-85 makes it a better chioce for travellers. Is it correct to say that? ( I havent been to the store to check out the actual lenses)

Never make a buying decision on photographic equipment on Reviews alone. Reviewers will find faults with any lens, especially as there are a few kinds of 70 - 200 - some with IS some without. you also have the f/2.8 and the f/4. The f/4 is cheaper than the 2.8 by some margin. All versions of the 70 - 200 (I have the original f/2.8 IS) are very solid lenses.
My advice - Go to a store and try them out. I'm assuming you have the kit lens for your camera. The 18 - 250 etc may give you flexibility, but at the cost of image quality.

prophet007 · Feb 20, 2012

Hi guys. I hope its ok to bring up an old thread. I was actually going to get 70-200 until I came across EF 24-105 which I think is pretty good as well. What do you guys think?

MLeeK · Feb 20, 2012

prophet007 said:
Hi guys. I hope its ok to bring up an old thread. I was actually going to get 70-200 until I came across EF 24-105 which I think is pretty good as well. What do you guys think?

What are you wanting to use it for? With what camera body?