# 18-200 lens. Sigma, Canon, Tamron?



## beginnerme

Hi, guys. 
I am just an enthusiast with a camera and no formal training or knowledge. Just from asking different people(photographers), I have come to the realization that an 18-200 lens would be ideal for me, who does not have the time, nor the budget to change different lenses for the different shooting needs.
So I started searching, and now I am very confused. Of course it would make sense to just get the Canon version, since I have a Rebel XT, but then I found the Sigma, which is a lot cheaper, especially if you get it used. I also heard about the Tamron, though I didn't see the prices.
Does anyone have experience/knowledge of all three compared to eachother?  Is the Sigma a lot worse since it is cheaper, or what is it missing? Is Canon a better choice just because it carries the name Canon?
Please give me any advice you have.
I am aware that the image quality will lack a little in this type of lens, due to the large range, but is it worse in one vs the others? 
I know it would be better to stick with the 18-55 kit lens and add a 70-200, or whatever you recommend, but I don't really want to switch lenses or even carry them with me(unless you guys really strongly suggest something else for around the same prices, which will give me better quality on both landscapes and zoom). I am more of a - grab the camera and go shoot - type of photographer.
I also take a lot of photos of my gorgeous little girl. Lots of them are taken in the house, in low light, with the built in flash. Any (cheap) suggestions for better shots?
Thanks a million, and sorry for the long post, but I figured the more info I give you, the more you can help me.

Roxanne


----------



## PhotoXopher

Sigma 18-250, my favorite so far for an all around walkabout lens!

I'd recommend pairing it with the Canon equivalent of the Nikon SB-400 for around the house shots.


----------



## Dao

If you have not do so, visit some of the lens review site.  Especially those has technical reviews.

Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ
Welcome to Photozone!
www.slrgear.com

As for the lens, you have few selections from the brands you listed.  Sigma and Tamron have couple super zooms in their line up.  Personally I do not own any of them so I do not know which one is better.

The review sites may give you some hint.  If you take a lot of photos of your kids, the one that has a faster AF may help.  This is just my personal experience.

As far as taking indoor picture with low light.  A fast lens (wide aperture lens) is preferred.   If flash is allow and you are able to bounce your flash (white ceiling), a external flash is a good choice even if it is mount on the hotshoe.  You can bounce the flash off the ceiling and the result is much better than build-in flash.


----------



## JustAnEngineer

beginnerme said:


> I know it would be better to stick with the 18-55 kit lens and add a 70-200, or whatever you recommend, but I don't really want to switch lenses or even carry them with me (unless you guys really strongly suggest something else for around the same prices, which will give me better quality on both landscapes and zoom).


 Replacing your EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM kit lens with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II for $400-$450 would provide better image quality and much better low-light capability.  The $250 EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS telephoto zoom lens would extend your reach for longer shots.  These two lenses together would cost less than the 18-200mm super-zoom, while providing significantly better image quality and a wider aperture.



beginnerme said:


> I also take a lot of photos of my gorgeous little girl. Lots of them are taken in the house, in low light, with the built in flash. Any (cheap) suggestions for better shots?
> Roxanne


 Mounting a bounceable flash like the Speedlite 430EX II and bouncing the light off of the ceiling as Dao suggested would go a long way towards improving your indoor photos, regardless of the lens that you're using.


----------



## beginnerme

Thank you all very much for taking the time to make suggestions. I have pretty  much decided that I have absolutely no idea what I need, want, and can afford. 
Sadly, I am on a very tight budget because I am a stay-at-home-mom since my daughter was born, and I cannot justify to my hard-working husband why I need to spend thousands on lenses to take pictures of our child, when the ones i have been taking are just fine(in his opinion).
So, I think I need to start the questioning all over again.
So here it goes.
I am not at all trained. I am just now trying to learn about aperture, f-stops, light, etc. I actually have to ask you what classes or online courses, or (the cheapest version) self teaching aides you recommend.
Aside from that, this is what I plan to do with my Canon Rebel XT:
1. Of course I take tons of pictures of my daughter. Mostly around the house, in low light. Other times out at the park or wherever. Of course she moves a lot, so I understand I need a "fast" lens, although I do not fully understand what that means. Maybe you can give me an actual name of a lens or the actual specifics I need to look for as reference.
2. I love to go out to the lake, catch a sunset, take landscape photos, etc. I know I need some sort of zoom lens when I want to get up close to a flower or a bug, but I also need a good landscape lens for capturing the whole panorama.
This is why I was looking into the 18-200, but I do realize I will not be happy with the quality.
So now I ask you....How can I possibly purchase something that is the cheapest but still good quality option for the different needs I have? what is the least amount of lenses I need to cover all ranges? The Tamron 17-50 was a great suggestion, I'm sure, but at $400-$450, I will blow my budget just on that alone. When I looked at a used Sigma 18-200, I got a price of about $395, so that is more why I considered it.
I can probably spend somewhere around $600-$700, but I guess I also really need the Speedlite 430 II, and that alone will run me about $300.
I guess the answer will be to just forget about wanting all this stuff I cannot afford.
So that is why I ask, what is the absolute necessary to cover a wide range?
Thanks a million.
Roxanne


----------



## icassell

JustAnEngineer said:


> beginnerme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it would be better to stick with the 18-55 kit lens and add a 70-200, or whatever you recommend, but I don't really want to switch lenses or even carry them with me (unless you guys really strongly suggest something else for around the same prices, which will give me better quality on both landscapes and zoom).
> 
> 
> 
> Replacing your EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM kit lens with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II for $400-$450 would provide better image quality and much better low-light capability.  The $250 EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS telephoto zoom lens would extend your reach for longer shots.  These two lenses together would cost less than the 18-200mm super-zoom, while providing significantly better image quality and a wider aperture.
Click to expand...


FYI -- Tamron just announced the release of a new Image Stabilized version of the 17-50.  I have the 17-50 and I love it as my walkabout lens.  Canon also just announced a couple of new contenders as well -- a 15-85mm and an 18-135mm.

http://tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090103canon15mm28mm18mm135mm.asp


----------



## Dao

To get started on learning your camera as well as photography, you can start here.

Digital Rebel XT Lessons

As for the lens, yes, they are not cheap.  And that is why all but one of my lenses were bought used.

Super zoom type lenses are good for vacation type that you do not want to carry a lot of gears around with you.  But in general, as we all know, they optical quality are not as good as the one that has a narrower range  of focal lengths.

The Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 lens is good.  I bought it used at $300. So if that is within your budget, you can look around and see if you can find one.  

So far, the only one that is optically good and low cost is EF 50mm F/1.8 lens.  It is not a zoom lens (zoom with your feet), but it is pretty fast.  In other words, the maximum aperture of the lens is pretty wide (F/1.8, the smaller the number, the wider the aperture).  Since you can open up the lens pretty wide and allow a lot of light to enter the camera, so you can take photo with a faster shutter speed (to freeze a motion), and that is why we called it a fast lens.


----------



## rnrtaylor

I just bought the Canon 18-200mm IS lens, thinking that I would love only having one lens to use all the time. However, for shots at the wider end of the range (18mm) that use the built-in flash, the shadow of the lens is in the picture. The lens is a 72mm diameter lens (quite fat but normal for a superzoom), and relatively long. I was hoping to sell my 18-55 and 55-200 lenses to pay for this new one as I also hate changing the lenses back and forth all the time, but I will be keeping the smaller one for indoor use. I am fairly spontaneous about using the camera and adding the external flash just seems like too much work (it won't fit in the bag attached to the camera). I'll still use the superzoom as my "walk-around" outdoor lens, as the quality is good enough for me, and the zoom range is quite nice. Hope that helps some with your decision.


----------



## Dao

rnrtaylor said:


> I just bought the Canon 18-200mm IS lens, thinking that I would love only having one lens to use all the time. However, for shots at the wider end of the range (18mm) that use the built-in flash, the shadow of the lens is in the picture. The lens is a 72mm diameter lens (quite fat but normal for a superzoom), and relatively long. I was hoping to sell my 18-55 and 55-200 lenses to pay for this new one as I also hate changing the lenses back and forth all the time, but I will be keeping the smaller one for indoor use. I am fairly spontaneous about using the camera and adding the external flash just seems like too much work (it won't fit in the bag attached to the camera). I'll still use the superzoom as my "walk-around" outdoor lens, as the quality is good enough for me, and the zoom range is quite nice. Hope that helps some with your decision.



A external flash still better than the build-in flash.  For one, and you already noticed, it will solve your shadow problem.   And since it position higher, you should not need to worry about red eye.  Most important, if you choose the one that can let you bounce the ceiling or wall, your flash photo will look a lot better.

In some situation, a bright outdoor photos may need the flash to fill in.


----------



## rnrtaylor

Dao said:


> A external flash still better than the build-in flash. For one, and you already noticed, it will solve your shadow problem. And since it position higher, you should not need to worry about red eye. Most important, if you choose the one that can let you bounce the ceiling or wall, your flash photo will look a lot better.
> 
> In some situation, a bright outdoor photos may need the flash to fill in.


 
I completely agree. The reason I don't mount my flash every time is because it's just not as easy as grabbing my camera and clicking away. I can live with the less than perfect photos. When I have time I'll mount the flash to get the better picture. 

My point was more to inform Beginnerme about the Canon superzoom. Because she's a "grab the camera and go shoot" kind of person, and she wants to take indoor photos using the built-in flash, she might need to rethink a superzoom lens. An informed decision is what she wanted and she might need as many reasons not to get a superzoom lens as reasons to get multiple lenses (and an external flash).


----------

