Versatility Lenses... HELP!

[Chlosse]

This is the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3

I'm basically trying to find a more recently introduced lens similar to this, available for a Canon EF Mount and Nikon F Mount.
Does anyone own this or can tell me about something with similar features? It's superzoom seems really useful, as well as the Aspherical (IF) MACRO.
This is something I'm looking for to minimize changing of lenses, but I don't know too much about lenses in this range

 

[ILikeToTakePhotos]

here is a lense: Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 OS DC HSM for Canon EOS it costs about $100 more, not sure when it was released, but it is make for Canon and Nikon! I hope I could help...

 

[gsgary]

I wouldn't touch a lens with that much zoom

 

[KmH]

Lenses with that much zoom range (superzoom) are very convenient, and popular.

But to get that superzoom range the lens designers have to dance around a long list of design compromizes that make the lens a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none lens that has image quality issues as the lens is adjusteed towards any of it's minimum or maximum settings of lens aperture, focal length or focus distance.

If consistant image quality is one of the important performance aspects high on your list of wants in a lens, stay away from superzoom lenses, regardless who made them.

 

[Chlosse]

I see.. thanks guys! Just going through my options

 

[usayit]

I looked into this recently.

From my research, I found the Tamron 18-250mm the best choice for superzoom. If you are looking for cheaper, the previous version Tamron 18-200mm is still on store shelves at a steep discount ($250 at a local shop). However, reports do show that the 18-250mm has improved IQ especially at the long end of the focal range. The 18-270mm is actually newer but I haven't found much on it.

The lens is tested on different bodies here:

All Tests / Reviews

Considering the focal range and versatility, many were still surprised. BTW.. The Pentax 18-250mm is the same exact lens.

 

[IgsEMT]

On Nikon 18-200 VR II (and VR I, when I played w/ it) shooting wider then 5.6 would be suicidal unless you like ultra softness. Also shooting at extreme zooms of 18 and 200 mm - loosing quality. Overall it isn't a bad lens for its range but you need to keep it b/n 6.3-11 and 24mm-170mm for optimal quality.
18-200 Tamron, I wouldn't use that lens if it was the LAST superzoom in the world. I owned it for about six month... It doesn't like to focus indoors (2x60w lightbulbs don't provide enough light for it to focus) and when it does try to focus it goes through a seizure episode. I exchanged it 3 times, thinking it was fault lens. On the last version, I used it for 5 months and learned all the crappy quality that came w/ it. It does a decent enough job outdoors when stopped down to f/11-f/16 but wider then that didn't do the job. ASSUMING (a strong word ) that Tamron took care of its issue it might be a better lens, but I'd recommend sticking to Brand Names, only because they'll hold their value down the line.
Good Luck

 

[Drake]

Yup, lens like this seem to be versatile, but only to a certain degree. Maybe it has it's reach, but I wouldn't call versatile something you have to use at about f8, or at least 6.3 to get usable images. The new generation of kit lens is sharper in the 18-55mm, and almost any cheap 70-300 lens will be sharper at the longer end. So what you're getting is a lens about the quality of a kit lens (usually lower) and a cheap tele. And it costs twice as much, just because it's one lens, not two.