Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 23, 2007, 6:14 AM   #1
Junior Member
waveform's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2

Hi and thanks for the great forums! (new here and new to SLR)

I'm looking for a lens for my 350D (RebelXT) to replace the kit 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. I need something like a "walkaround" lens - better quality than the kit, but not too expensive.

I've decided on a 28-200mm as a good first step. The reviews for both Tamron and Sigma in this size seem very similar.

1. Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DG Macro
2. Tamron AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 XR Aspherical (IF) Macro

So from experience, may I ask which manufacturer would be recommended, in terms of lens, picture and build quality? Any bad experiences with either of these brands?

Thanks for any help!


waveform is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 23, 2007, 8:54 AM   #2
Senior Member
xiggy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 129

but i dont think that macro lenses are made for shooting normal subjects, mainl just up close man you may be looking for a normal 28-200 without the macro, ill google it to make sure!

what i found: macro lenses are just made so you can be 1:1 magnification with an object, so at 100mm you can be 4 inches away and have 1:1 magnification, so these lenses are made for close up shots nothing long range i dont think, but im sure they will work for long range, maybe, you will probably have to wait for a more experienced person to answer

also andy im getting an xt for Christmas i cant wait! Good Luck man!

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas!
xiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2007, 11:06 AM   #3
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

28-200 is not a great range on the crop cameras.

Why not try the new Tamron 18-250mm instead. Very nice looking lens and will give you great range.


Now that's if you want a superzoom.

But you say you're looking for something better quality than the kit lens - now lets be clear, going from a 2.5x zoom up to a 10x or 13x zoom is not a recipe for improved quality.

If all you really want to do is improve the quality of the 18-55 range then check out the new Canon 18-55 IS, or look at the Tamron or Sigma f2.8 zooms that cover a similar range. You could also look at the Canon 17-85 or Sigma 17-70.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2007, 11:56 AM   #4
Junior Member
waveform's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2

Hi Peri,

Yes, you're quite right... I'm kinda new to this, but after doing a test this evening, I can see (literally) your point. The shop let me borrow their Tamron 24-200. I compared it with my kit 18-55 lens:


Taken at f11, 1/200th with flash.
On left: Canon kit 18-55 on left at 55mm; on right: Tamron 28-200 also at 55mm.

The low-contrast grey cable cover (on right of both images) is sharper in the Tamron, however the lettering is sharper on the Canon kit lens! Looking closer, I spotted the orange CA fringing around the letters which makes the Tamron letters look fuzzy.


Amazing! I'm learning that each lens has it's strong points and quirks.

Being a fan of wildlife shots, I guess zoom quality is important to me... how is the Sigma is this respect?

waveform is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2007, 1:54 PM   #5
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

OK, let's sort something out.

Zoom is the ratio of the longest focal length to the shortest that a particular lens covers.

So a 100-300mm lens is a 3x zoom. So is an 18-55mm.

Generally the bigger the zoom factor the worse the lens is optically (but is more convenient).

If you want reach then you want TELEPHOTO i.e. a long focal length.

So to get that reach you should be looking at something like 300mm, 400mm or 500mm at the long end.

There are lots of options at lots of price points ranging from about $200 up to about $10,000.

The bad news is that longer lenses are heavy and cost lots of money. But as you live in a place with very bright light you will be able to get some nice shots from the cheaper lenses stopped down.

So the first good one to start with is something like the Sigma 70-300 APO at just over $200.

If you want to move up in quality then something like the Canon 70-300 IS.

Moving up again look at the Sigma 100-300, then perhaps the Tamron 200-500 or the maybe the Canon 100-400L.

Beyond that you are starting to talk about some serious cash.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 PM.