Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-250 vs Tamron 18-270?

FocusDave · May 31, 2012

Hey all. So, I recently acquired a Tamron 18-200 for my Nikon D90, and it's a really fun lens. It's nice to be able to take wide shots and still get some decent telephoto shots with the same lens. After using it for a little bit, my girlfriend decided she really liked the long zoom capabilities. Rather than switch from wide angle to telephoto on her Rebel XS, she said that she would want a similar lens to the 18-200. I did some digging and found the Sigma 18-250 as well as the Tamron 18-270. Before you go on about it, yes, I know that an all-around lens isn't as good at either extreme as a dedicated wide angle or a dedicated telephoto. That's not what this is about. This is solely about the convenience of being able to do it all with one lens.

I notice that there is a gradual increase in price as you go up through the range of focal lengths. I was wondering if having the additional 50mm of reach for the Sigma is worth the extra $200 over the 18-200, and if the Tamron 18-270 is worth it over the Sigma for 20 more mm (the price difference will be pretty drastic soon, as the Tamron has a $100 rebate until June 30). Thoughts? Experiences?

Dao · May 31, 2012

This article maybe helpful.

JuzaPhoto - Canon 18-200 vs Sigma 18-250 vs Tamron 18-250 and 18-270

hukim0531 · May 31, 2012

Dao, that is some fantastic comparison! I would say Canon looks better in almost every category. Here's another site where you can change focal length and aperture yourself for comparison of center, mid-frame and corner sharpness. Going through the different settings, again Canon seem to be the better lens.

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

FocusDave · May 31, 2012

For $700, I would really hope that the Canon is better.

jaomul · May 31, 2012

50mm at these focal lengths isn't really that much. I think a very small crop would not be to big a deal to save 200

FocusDave · Jun 1, 2012

jaomul said:
50mm at these focal lengths isn't really that much. I think a very small crop would not be to big a deal to save 200

So you're saying that 18-250 doesn't really give you that much of a benefit over the 18-200? Other than reach, a big benefit I was considering was that maximum aperture at 200mm on the 18-250 is probably wider than on the 18-200.