Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 18-200 IS vs Canon 18-135 IS

[Digpics]

Right, so we can agree that the Tamron 18-270mm VC is better than the Canon 18-200mm.

I have never used the Tamron 18-270 so I could not agree that it is better or not. The Photozone review you reference indicated it could be a "tad better." Other reviews give the nod to the Canon 18-200 in some areas and to the Tamron in others. I am not defending either lens.

hdx08774 wrote:

Additionally, if you don't need VC (or Image Stabilization) then the Tamron 18-250mm is better than them both. If shooting indoors, IS is important, but for outdoor work, especially in good light, it's not a requirement, provided you can shoot at speeds of greater than 1/250 at 250mm. Remember that these new cameras, like the 7D and T2i, have stellar high ISO performance, to the point that shooting at ISO 3200 is not an issue anymore. This should offset the lack of IS to some degree.

I think that everyone needs to determine if image stabilization in important to them. Pesonally I really like IS on a zoom for a variety of reasons. YMMV. I would not conclude that the Tamron 18-250 is better than the Tamron 18-270 and the Canon 18-200 based on one review - and considering they were written at different times.

The Photozone review you reference concludes with, "All-in-all the lens (Tamron 18-270) may be a tad better than Canon's 18-200..."

The Tamron 18-250 does not offer image stabilization which many people consider very important on a superzoom that has a effective focal lenght of 400MM on a crop camera!

 

[SimonV]

I had the Sigma 18-200 OS and used it as a travel lens. Too bad you got a bad copy, I was very satisfied with mine. Very sharp results, and it's cheaper than the Canon (or at least was when I bought it, the price went up by 100 euros almost a year after I bought it). When I was comparing models before buying some reviews said the Canon wasn't very good (unfortunately I can't remember where I read that).

I now have a Canon 28-300L and am very pleased with it. It's heavy, yes, maybe the only real downside to it. I use it on a crop camera so I miss out on the wide end but gain a lot on the tele end. I really wish the Tamron 18-250 would be as good as it but somehow I find it hard to believe (or just won't admit it since I paid a lot for the Canon ). I wouldn't buy a new 28-300L for the price though, 2500 euros here = about the same in dollars I think, if you can find it used for a good price I can recommend it (if you can cope with the weight, it's about 3lbs [1,5 kg] but as far as I know it's the best all-rounder, and better be considering the price).

 

[glasswave]

Using photozone you can compare the 18-250 to the Canon 17-85 IS at 8mp, the compare the 17-85 to the 18-270 at 15mp. The 18-250 is generally sharper than the 17-85 IS, while the 17-85 is generally sharper than the 18-270. While hardly a controlled test, I believe it to be representative.

Also, you'll find mostly very positive reviews on the 18-250 stating that it was an optical achievement in superzooms (longer zoom range yet sharper than others), while the reviews on the 18-270 are generally mixxed.

Finally, I have read that most of the Tamron VC lenses are significantly softer than their non VC counterparts.

--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

 

[Matt_UKTX]

I agree 100%. I had the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, got rid of it to get the VC version, wished I hadn't... The VC one wasn't bad at all, just not as good as the non-VC one. I returned it and got the Canon 15-85mm instead. It's better than both of them.

I had the Tamron 18-250mm and loved it. The only issue is zoom creep, but I understand that's a problem on all these types of lenses. Once I got the 15-85mm, I didn't use the 18-250mm much anymore, so I got rid of it.

Using photozone you can compare the 18-250 to the Canon 17-85 IS at 8mp, the compare the 17-85 to the 18-270 at 15mp. The 18-250 is generally sharper than the 17-85 IS, while the 17-85 is generally sharper than the 18-270. While hardly a controlled test, I believe it to be representative.

Also, you'll find mostly very positive reviews on the 18-250 stating that it was an optical achievement in superzooms (longer zoom range yet sharper than others), while the reviews on the 18-270 are generally mixxed.

Finally, I have read that most of the Tamron VC lenses are significantly softer than their non VC counterparts.

--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

 

[glasswave]

I had the Sigma 18-200 OS and used it as a travel lens. Too bad you got a bad copy, I was very satisfied with mine. Very sharp results,

I had the Tamron 18-200 (non VC)

I now have a Canon 28-300L and am very pleased with it. It's heavy, yes, maybe the only real downside to it. I use it on a crop camera so I miss out on the wide end but gain a lot on the tele end.

I really wish the Tamron 18-250 would be as good as it but somehow I find it hard to believe (or just won't admit it since I paid a lot for the Canon ).

I may have had a very good copy of the Tamron, but sharpness wise mine is certainly very, very close to my 28-300L. OTH, color & contrast in poor light is better on the Canon by a long shot. Not to mention focus speed and build as well.

I wouldn't buy a new 28-300L for the price though, 2500 euros here = about the same in dollars I think, if you can find it used for a good price I can recommend it (if you can cope with the weight, it's about 3lbs [1,5 kg] but as far as I know it's the best all-rounder, and better be considering the price).

I think Tamron has the lead in superzoom technology, but their VC system is certainly costing them sharpness wise. I think if they tried to make a larger 18-270 3.5-5.6 that was a little larger & perhaps 2.2 lbs that was about $1200 with better VC optics we'd have a clear winner.

If I could put that on my 7d and back it up with an ef-s 20mm f1.4 IS at about 20 oz. & and $700, I'd have my dream travel setup.

--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

 

[SimonV]

I agree about the idea of a larger 18-270, that would be the ultimate do-all lens for crop sensors.

Sorry, the Sigma 18-200 comment was for the OP. Oops

 

[serpeant]

Have the newer copies of the Sigma 18-200 improved?

Which would you get for a general travel lens?

Sigma 18-200mm

Sigma 18-300mm

Canon 18-135mm

or is there something else I should consider?

 

[Mark B.]

Have the newer copies of the Sigma 18-200 improved?

Which would you get for a general travel lens?

Sigma 18-200mm

Sigma 18-300mm

Canon 18-135mm

or is there something else I should consider?

You should consider starting a new thread rather than opening a 9-year old one.