Which lens to use? Tamron 18-250mm, or Canon 18-200mm?

[Geoff79]

Just curious to get some thoughts from people here. As far as I can gather, these types of lenses are quite unpopular and I feel like not many people here may have bothered with such lenses. But I'll test the waters anyway. As a short back story, my wife bought a Canon 40D many years ago, about a decade I think, and I believe at the time it came with the Tamron 18-250mm lens. So we had and used it for a long time, for simple photography and it did the job well. Then somewhere along the line I more or less took possession of the camera, and for reasons I cant recall now, I felt the need to get the Canon 18-200mm lens instead. I think it was mostly just that I was of the impression the IQ was significantly better.

So I got that lens and have used it quite contently for every year since. In that time we bought a Canon 70D and I've continued to use this lens. For the record, I have a Sigma 10-22mm for all my land/seascape requirements, but for everything else I have used this Canon 18-200mm.

Then, after taking the Canon 18-200mm to Vanuatu and using it as per normal, as soon as I got home I took that lens off the camera, for the first time in about a decade (aside from when I use the wide angle) and I put the Tamron back on, and haven't taken it off since. A couple of reasons:

1. All of a sudden, supposedly, that extra 50mm focal length became "important."
2. The Canon lens is 18-200mm in name, but for a very long time I have found it very difficult to shoot anything at all at 200mm. I'd say I've found it impossible, to be honest, bar the test I will show below. My wife says the same thing... but at 200mm, the camera will just not focus and take a photo. Very frustrating. I don't understand why, but it doesn't do it. Alternatively, I put the Tamron on, go to 250mm and shoot without hesitation. As, I imagine, it should be.

Anyway, so I've been using the Tamron lens pretty happily, enjoying the extra 50mm but it's always been in the back of my head if I'm doing the right thing, or am I just wasting the money I spent on the Canon lens. Amusingly enough, to be completely candid, what brought it to a head was a competition result on this very forum.

Going back a few weeks, I'll admit it, I was really surprised by the end result in this comp:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?153855-Final-Poll-1049-Photo-of-the-Week-582-MOVEMENT-Intermediate

For this photo:

132254

On a weekly basis, I understand and feel like I can usually gather up a number of valid reasons as to why my entries fare how they do, and it all makes sense to me. I think this was the only time I was really quite baffled. In my mind I thought it was a pretty cool snap and would go well. So, as I do, I assessed it in the aftermath in order to understand why not only was it unsuccessful - but it was landslided. (A word? you ask. It is now).

The reasons I came up with were:

1. The photo is just crap. No two ways about it ; I hoped this wasn't the case as I quite liked it, but tastes differ. That could be it.
2. Not cropped enough ; it was a conscious decision for me to leave this crop as it was to take in the lake and it's surrounds as it was part of the story for me, but of course that story doesn't become part of the photo comp.
3. No motion blur ; as the theme was 'Movement' I wondered if the lack of actual blurred movement may have cost me.
4. Bokeh ; a funny ol' word and one I'm not ashamed to admit I was unfamiliar with before rejoining this forum earlier this year. I'd never heard of the term before until I saw it a few times here and googled it and found out that that background blur had a name. lol. But in reviewing my photo, I wondered if the bokeh/background was a bit "jittery" and off-putting.

And it was number four which made me wonder, because I had never once ever noticed off-putting bokeh in my photos taken with the Canon lens. I wondered if it might be a "thing" with the Tarmon lens over the Canon one.

So amidst extreme interference (all cute and hard to get too angry at) from my to children, I set up my tripod in the backyard, found a point of interest, and decided to test the two lenses head to head... purely on bokeh quality alone. I probably need to do more tests, but in all honesty I was just too busy this weekend to even get a moment to do any more than this... which was rushed itself.

Unfortunately, I'm not really comparing apples with apples... and I'll admit it's due to me being unaware of how to use my equipment. I admit I don't know how to shoot my Tamron lens at 200mm, other than by pure fluke. What's the secret to shooting at a specific focal length (that isn't the min or max the lens shoots)? I've always just gone off what suits what I'm trying to shoot. So anyway, one is shot at 250mm and one at 200mm (and I understand I should have adjusted settings accordingly too), but I was hoping the results would still be evident. To me, they're not. But I'd be really curious to hear any input on which lens folk here would be using in my situation.

For the record, and there is still a thread to come... I do want to enter the world of full frame cameras, but I have absolutely no idea how I'd afford it, so this is what I'm "stuck with" for now.

So here are the results. These are obviously both straight out of the camera, no editing at all, for the sake of the experiment:

Canon 18-200mm, @ 200mm, f/6.3, 1/125, ISO 100
132256

Tamron 18-250mm, @ 250mm, f/6.3, 1/125, ISO 100
132257

[ameerat42]

When the text in a post extends to the very end of the display window, it becomes difficult to read. This is why I had to read your post - but many others are the same - twice and then some. I will soon finish this line and continue
here.

I gather you are saying that you will rely on the lens that gives the better IQ.
I think you illustrated that the extra 50mm/200mm = 25% extra magnification
does not matter much if the IQ is not there. If you have lingering doubts, and
extra gear does not matter, you could take both, and if one breaks down...

Bokeh-wise there seems little difference between the two in these images.
I do not see the difference you're alluding to.

Different lenses do not always give the same magnification at a given focal length.
As a rough comparison, try filling the frame with the same scene as you got with
the f=50-200, when you zoom out on the f=50-250.:confused013. However, is there
no FL indicator in the display?

[Geoff79]

When the text in a post extends to the very end of the display window, it becomes difficult to read. This is why I had to read your post - but many others are the same - twice and then some. I will soon finish this line and continue
here.

I gather you are saying that you will rely on the lens that gives the better IQ.
I think you illustrated that the extra 50mm/200mm = 25% extra magnification
does not matter much if the IQ is not there. If you have lingering doubts, and
extra gear does not matter, you could take both, and if one breaks down...

Bokeh-wise there seems little difference between the two in these images.
I do not see the difference you're alluding to.

Different lenses do not always give the same magnification at a given focal length.
As a rough comparison, try filling the frame with the same scene as you got with
the f=50-200, when you zoom out on the f=50-250.:confused013. However, is there
no FL indicator in the display?

Apologies about the wide text. Is that something I'm doing on my end? Can I amend that, other than pressing enter to end a line sooner?

Yeah, correct... if the Canon one did give me evidently better picture quality, I would definitely use it over the Tamron. But I'm not convinced it does.

Amazingly, there does not appear to be any FL indicator in my display on the camera. Unless I am missing something obvious. But I was sure there
would be some indication too, but was unable to find it when I was shooting. But yeah, your tip about just filling the frame as a did on the previous
shot is not a bad tip, lol. Like I said, under pressure with the kids and timing against me. Brain probably wasn't working too well. Though, that said...
does it ever? ;)

[aussirose]

I'm looking at upgrading to the 80D and that Tamron lens
I have the Canon one and the thing that annoys me is that you can't lock it into place like the Tamron especially when I have my camera hanging around my neck...the lens drops down. So its interesting to hear that there apparently there is not nuch difference in photo results. It is well known that these sorts of lenses are not as good as primes for distance shots but my 18-200 is a great allrounder. Thanks for the post.

[Geoff79]

I'm looking at upgrading to the 80D and that Tamron lens
I have the Canon one and the thing that annoys me is that you can't lock it into place like the Tamron especially when I have my camera hanging around my neck...the lens drops down. So its interesting to hear that there apparently there is not nuch difference in photo results. It is well known that these sorts of lenses are not as good as primes for distance shots but my 18-200 is a great allrounder. Thanks for the post.

No worries. Let me know if you want me to run any other types of tests between the two. Happy to show you or let you know any comparison queries you might have.

The tamron is definitely a lighter lens... much more so. It's funny you mention that lock function with the tamron lens... I've not actually used it before, lol.

And yeah, despite knowing they're not the cream of the crop in terms of lenses, they have served me well through the years. Especially since having kids. Even though I'm continuously taking shots of them, there's always something that catches my eye, and it's great having that range to be able to shoot with that single lens when it's all you can really bring along a lot of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

When the text in a post extends to the very end of the display window, it becomes difficult to read. This is why I had to read your post - but many others are the same - twice and then some. I will soon finish this line and continue
here.

Sorry. Is this a joke? if so, it's too subtle for me.

[ameerat42]

Geoff. I just use Enter.

Tannin. Not particularly.

[Tannin]

AM, please don't do that. The forum software is designed to flow text properly onto the screen, and does a very good job of that. If the text lines are too long for your personal taste, you can adjust them simply by resizing your browser window. Not only does this capability (built into every web browser on the planet) provide you with the ability to have any page width you desire, it also allows every other reader to have whatever page width and line length he or she desires, and to change it at will. This works on all devices: desktop computer, tablet, laptop or telephone.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry Geoff, back on-topic now.

In theory, the Canon ought to be better insofar as it is regarded as one of the less-worse superzooms around. But is it still performing as it should after all these years of use? Possibly the Tamron is better now if the Canon has slipped out of adjustment or had a knock. But if distortion bugs you, no superzoom will ever please.

[ameerat42]

Right. Well I will respectfully disagree and not inconvenience myself in another way to
accommodate an unperceived boon that the designers bestowed upon us.

[Geoff79]

AM, please don't do that. The forum software is designed to flow text properly onto the screen, and does a very good job of that. If the text lines are too long for your personal taste, you can adjust them simply by resizing your browser window. Not only does this capability (built into every web browser on the planet) provide you with the ability to have any page width you desire, it also allows every other reader to have whatever page width and line length he or she desires, and to change it at will. This works on all devices: desktop computer, tablet, laptop or telephone.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry Geoff, back on-topic now.

In theory, the Canon ought to be better insofar as it is regarded as one of the less-worse superzooms around. But is it still performing as it should after all these years of use? Possibly the Tamron is better now if the Canon has slipped out of adjustment or had a knock. But if distortion bugs you, no superzoom will ever please.

Thanks Tony. I do confess that the canon lens has been used, and used extensively. It has taken a couple of knocks too. Oh wait! I just remembered something. It's not almost 10 years old at all. The first one I had would be about 10 years old now, if my baby boy hadn't pulled my camera off the kitchen bench when he was about 6 months old. But he did, and the lens well and truly smashed. So I bought a replacement, which is now only about 4 years old, in fact.

But regardless, it has been well used and I've broken two UV filters on it, at least. The last one being on the last day of our holiday in Vanuatu a couple of months back. Again, my boy was the culprit, but this time he knew what he'd done and was so shocked and sad about it. Once I realised it was just the filter and not the lens, I actually felt really bad for how bad he felt, lol.

Anyway, all that said, it's taken some knocks and you think that might contribute to why I basically can't shoot at 200mm?

But yeah, it is tough because image quality doesn't appear to differ much. Though, you mentioned in the other thread that the Tamron is probably even worse with those curved horizons than the Canon. I will test that too! ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

In the other thread I recommended that you replace your lenses first, and traded in your camera later. Having learned more about your situation, I have changed my mind. Keep the camera, sell your son. Cheaper that way.

[Geoff79]

In the other thread I recommended that you replace your lenses first, and traded in your camera later. Having learned more about your situation, I have changed my mind. Keep the camera, sell your son. Cheaper that way.

Haha!! That made me laugh properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mary Anne]

And Geoff when you win Lotto or sell your Son whatever come first, buy a Canon L prime lens, you will never be sorry and will never have to worry about lousy bokeh again

[Geoff79]

And Geoff when you win Lotto or sell your Son whatever come first, buy a Canon L prime lens, you will never be sorry and will never have to worry about lousy bokeh again

Thanks for the tip, Mary Anne. Had a quick look at them... the 14mm one would be my most wanted. I think I'd have to win lotto and still sell my boy to get one of those! Sounds fantastic... but as you suggest, they don't come cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mary Anne]

I was thinking more along the 300mm size Geoff, seeing your Title was about the Tamron 18-250mm and Canon 18-200mm lengths ?

[arthurking83]

And Geoff when you win Lotto or sell your Son whatever come first, buy a Canon L prime lens, you will never be sorry and will never have to worry about lousy bokeh again

While I really like Mary Anne and her contributions to AP over the years ... I have to respectfully disagree!

You'd by a Nikon Fx body(of any type) and .... a few lenses too go with that order sir!
If you get that kind of money together, you have to spend it much more wisely than the suggested red ringed lenses .. and as quickly as humanly possible, before the other half tries too! ;)

So now you know .. Nikon gear(when the funds allow) which will give you bokeh to spare + the side bonus that Dx lenses and Fx bodies aren't mutually exclusive! ;)


ps. the term bokeh is used to describe the quality of the background blur.
So 'blur' is the word used to describe that the background(or foreground) is blurred, and bokeh is used to describe how appealing it looks.
So the term bokeh should never really appear in isolation, it's good bokeh, bad bokeh .. average, ok .. etc.

Think of it in terms of bouquet of a wine. In a parallel world, the photo may have a
Wine has a smell. Wines will have a 'bouquet' about them. Could be a nice bouquet, fruity/floral/etc ... or an unpleasant bouquet, musty/acidic/mouldy/etc .
So the parallel would be that the wine has a smell(blur), and that that smell has a bouquet about it(bokeh).

[Geoff79]

I was thinking more along the 300mm size Geoff, seeing your Title was about the Tamron 18-250mm and Canon 18-200mm lengths ?

I'd absolutely love a 300mm lens because I would like to get into that type of photography one day. But, after taking photos of my kids growing up, my passion is definitely land and seascapes. And if I took the plunge with a FF, my first lens would need to be something to cater to my love of the land and sea. I've loved the 18-200/250mm because it allows me to take photos of my kids being kids, but also to get that cheeky shot of our surrounds in the same instance.

A 300mm lens is something I'd love because I do have a fondness for all parts of nature - probably not birds as much as many folk here - but everything else. I'd love to be let loose in a rainforest/bush with a 300mm lens wrapped around my eye. So yeah, one day... but it's not the top of my list. ;) I actually borrowed a lens (I think it was 70-300mm) from a wildlife photographer at Seal Bay on Kangaroo Island when we were down there. Lovely fella, completely unprompted. I must have had a serious look about me as we walked onto the beach with the seals, and he asked if I wanted to borrow his lens and I couldn't have said yes quick enough. Walked away with some great snaps of the baby seals down there. I was most grateful, and from then I have wanted at least 300mm worth of lens, but there's no cheap way around those ones...

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, I just noticed this lens is actually really cheap:

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
This lens is compatible with full-frame and APS-C format Canon DSLRs.

For around the $130 mark. What's the catch here? That seems like amazing value.

[arthurking83]

My first guess would be "you get what you pay for".

So I had a quick look at what TDP(The Digital Picture) think of the lens ...


Build quality of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is mediocre (and this may be a generous rating).


Image quality from the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is also mediocre.

Thought so.

All these 70-300 type lenses can be mediocre(ish) to a degree.
But, I've been checking them out for a while now trying to find as much info on them as I can.
I used to have a Sigma 70-300mm and got OK(enough) images at certain settings.
usually 300 mm is not worth bothering with(depending on demands of the images at that focal length).
Some of these lenses are labelled 'macro' and you wouldn't bother with that feature.
I found the Sigma 70-300 was good up to about the mid 200 mm FL. IQ was 'usable' up to about that setting. Even stopped down at 300mm it's soft.

Same with Tamrons.
When I went into the store to get my Tamron 70-200/2.8 I thought I might try out the Tamron 18-270mm super zoom and also the (old version) 70-300mm(not the current USD version).
18-270 wasn't worth the effort(I think) and 70-300 could get some half decent images I think. But due to the slow apertures you need a lot of ISO to make them work too.

In comparing how each of those lenses work relative to each other, I've been looking into as many reviews of them as I can.
And in doing so, I'm thinking that Canon's 70-300 IS II looks to be pretty good, followed by Tamron's 70-300mm VC USD in that lens model type.
When I was getting my Tammy 24-70VC, I also tried out the Tammy 70-300 lens(as well as the T70-200/2.8) in the store. It was quite dim in there, and ISO was pushed up into the high range on the D800 on thee f/2.8 lens!
ISO was way too high to assess the IQ of the 70-300 VC USD lens, but I could just see that it resolved OK. ISO value killed the resolution tho.

I have no idea how much a Canon 70-300 IS II retails for, but I'd be looking that way, or if the price is a bit over budget, then a Tammy 70-300 VC USM.

[Geoff79]

My first guess would be "you get what you pay for".

So I had a quick look at what TDP(The Digital Picture) think of the lens ...





Thought so.

All these 70-300 type lenses can be mediocre(ish) to a degree.
But, I've been checking them out for a while now trying to find as much info on them as I can.
I used to have a Sigma 70-300mm and got OK(enough) images at certain settings.
usually 300 mm is not worth bothering with(depending on demands of the images at that focal length).
Some of these lenses are labelled 'macro' and you wouldn't bother with that feature.
I found the Sigma 70-300 was good up to about the mid 200 mm FL. IQ was 'usable' up to about that setting. Even stopped down at 300mm it's soft.

Same with Tamrons.
When I went into the store to get my Tamron 70-200/2.8 I thought I might try out the Tamron 18-270mm super zoom and also the (old version) 70-300mm(not the current USD version).
18-270 wasn't worth the effort(I think) and 70-300 could get some half decent images I think. But due to the slow apertures you need a lot of ISO to make them work too.

In comparing how each of those lenses work relative to each other, I've been looking into as many reviews of them as I can.
And in doing so, I'm thinking that Canon's 70-300 IS II looks to be pretty good, followed by Tamron's 70-300mm VC USD in that lens model type.
When I was getting my Tammy 24-70VC, I also tried out the Tammy 70-300 lens(as well as the T70-200/2.8) in the store. It was quite dim in there, and ISO was pushed up into the high range on the D800 on thee f/2.8 lens!
ISO was way too high to assess the IQ of the 70-300 VC USD lens, but I could just see that it resolved OK. ISO value killed the resolution tho.

I have no idea how much a Canon 70-300 IS II retails for, but I'd be looking that way, or if the price is a bit over budget, then a Tammy 70-300 VC USM.

So you'd be thinking the Canon one would offer no significant better results than my Tamron 18-250mm?

I had a look at the IS II and that one is definitely more than I'd be willing to spend. But the Tamron one is not much more than the Canon III. Just want to check I'm looking at the same one as you. The Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD? The VC USM part doesn't appear in description.

But you'd suggest the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would be better than the Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6?

What, you think I get distracted easily? [emoji6] Don't know how I got sidetracked like this, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

Yes, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is better than the Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6. Then again, what isn't?

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

I strongly advise against buying cheap long glass. You can get away with shortcuts at 25mm, at 70mm, even at 12mm if pushed, and you can work around the equipment's limitations, but with long lenses (anything over about ... oh ... say 200mm or so) there is simply no way around the difficult physics of large magnifications. The longer the lens, the more true this becomes. Don't rush into long glass, think hard, take your time, save up longer if you have to, and if need be wait for a good opportunity second-hand.

[Mary Anne]

Arthur a good pick up I should have used the word blur not bokeh even though my canon L 300mm f/4 gives both beautiful bokeh and blurred BG's.

[Geoff79]

Just returning back to this thread with something that popped up today, and is worthy of note if anyone should ever find themselves considering these two lenses, especially if they don't mind a bit of macro photography here and there.

I should start by saying that I have not had a chance to look through and/or process today's photos, but... I had quite a few issues, and a rather stressful day today, thinking I'd wrecked my 70D. It turns out the absolute last fix I tried online (to error message Err 30) seems to have - fingers crossed - fixed the issue. But that's another story not worth going into. Either way, the kids went down for a nap this afternoon and I found myself with almost an hour to spend in the garden with my dodgy macro gear. As my 70D was inactive, I took the 40D out today, which was housing my canon 18-200mm lens, rather than the 18-250mm Tamron I have been using lately.

I'd mentioned in quite a few threads, that with the extension tubes (and especially when I attach the Raynox Macro Extension) I had been having real problems with the manual focus.

But I took out the 40D today with just the extension tubes and my Canon 18-200mm lens. And I have to say, it was an instant world of difference in terms of getting a decent focus. Just seemed a lot more likely to get a decent focus with this lens. I assume it might be the inclusion of Image Stabilisation, that the Tamron lens does not have. But whatever the case, it felt a lot better using the Canon lens compared to the Tamron. I just hope the results reflect this feeling. Though I know the breeze and lack of flash robbed me of some good images.

Only bummer is I can't use the Raynox extension with this lens as the lens' outer diameter is 72mm and the Raynox extension only fits on lens' up to 67mm. :( But with decent sized bugs n' stuff the extension tubes seem to do a decent job.