Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 13, 2009, 1:07 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default EF-S 18-200mm IS vs. EF-S 18-55mm IS + 55-250mm IS?

I have not used any of the above lenses. Is the convenience of the superzoom worth the potential loss of quality? The two-lens combo is cheaper and has greater reach at the telephoto end. But the convenience of the superzoom is hard to ignore.

Last edited by ianlin; Jul 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM.
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 13, 2009, 7:46 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

To tell you the truth, I think the Canon 18-200mm lens is simply awful!!!

In my opinion, the best lens in this sort of range (for a Canon) is the Tamron 18-250mm.

But if you want good overall performance, get the two lens combination, as those two IS lenses are good.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2009, 8:27 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default

Thanks for your reply, dnas. I actually have the Tamron 18-270mm superzoom. I had it for 6 months. It was my first foray into non-canon lens. I have been very disappointed with the IQ results of this lens, that's why I am considering going back to Canon lenses.
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2009, 9:11 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Well, I'm sorry to say, you selected probably the SECOND weakest lens in that class!

My personal opinion is, in the order I would rate them:
Tamron 18-250mm
Nikon 18-200mm (of course you can't use this one!!!)
Sigma 18-250mm
Sigma 18-200mm
Tamron 18-200mm
Tamron 18-270mm
Canon 18-200mm

However, in absolute terms, none of this class of lens is great.

For example, if the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS rates a 9.5/10, the two lenses you mentioned (EF-S 18-55mm IS + 55-250mm IS) would rate maybe 7/10, while the Tamron 18-250mm might rate a 5/10, while the Tamron 18-270mm might rate a 3/10, while the Canon 18-200mm might rate a 2/10 !!!!

The main thing to learn from this, is that you can't ASSUME that ANY Canon lens is better than 3rd party lenses. You need t read reviews, or take sample shots youself!!!

For example, had you bought the Canon 18-200mm lens, you would have ended up with an even worse lens than the Tamron 18-270mm, in my opinion!!!
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2009, 12:30 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

dnas, have you used all the above lenses, or do you just rate them reading reviews and looking at the sample shots? This is not a flame, I really want to know.
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2009, 1:19 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algold View Post
dnas, have you used all the above lenses, or do you just rate them reading reviews and looking at the sample shots? This is not a flame, I really want to know.
I read as many reviews as I can find (real reviews with tests, and sample shots), and try them out if I can. Reviews can vary quite a bit, so you need to judge one against the other as well.

For manual focus lenses, I do my own tests as well.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2009, 1:45 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

Thank you, personally, I tend to take most of the reviews with a grain (or two) of salt. Reviews are a great starting point, but I do like my 17-85 IS USM, which doesn't have many positive reviews and is beaten to death for its price, CA and distortions, but it works for me, and I'm not all that crazy about my Tammy 17-50 f/2.8, which has lots of raving reviews and is supposed to be the second best thing after sliced bread :lol:.
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2009, 9:34 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algold View Post
Thank you, personally, I tend to take most of the reviews with a grain (or two) of salt. Reviews are a great starting point, but I do like my 17-85 IS USM, which doesn't have many positive reviews and is beaten to death for its price, CA and distortions, but it works for me, and I'm not all that crazy about my Tammy 17-50 f/2.8, which has lots of raving reviews and is supposed to be the second best thing after sliced bread :lol:.
Actually, I agree. I also have the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-85.
And the Canon is on the camera 90% of the time. I'm glad I ignored all the bad reviews of the 17-85 and tried it myself. I will be trying an EF-S 18-200IS soon as a travel lens. If it sucks I'll just return it.
lotapixel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2009, 8:37 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

lotapixel-

I found a Tamron 18-200mm lens on E-Bay for a very attractive price indeed. I is not the absolutely sharpest lens out, but the price and convenience of having it as a travel lens makes it above average sharpness very acceptable.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:01 AM.