has anyone used a TAMRON 18-250mm lens

[LYDIA]

JUst purchased my first dslr- a canon 40d
Im in need of a lens for it- wanting to travel, so a good all rounder?
I've been told the tamron 18-250 are good? any suggestions as to what lens would be good?

thanks heaps :)

[doombaj01]

Hi Lydia, I use Pentax but have the Tamron 18-250 which is a great all-round lens - it is the only lens that is always either in my bag or on the camera while everything else comes and goes according to need. The only isssue I have with it is that it tends to vignette a bit at 18mm. You will find that for Canon there is now the Tamron 18-270 with VR. My brother-in-law bought this lens for his Canon and has been very satisfied. If you are looking for some posts of shots from the 18-250 on my Pentax K-5, try this web album: https://picasaweb.google.com/doombaj01/OverlandTrackTasmaniaMarchApril2011# The majority of landscape shots were taken with the 18-250. You might also look at the Sigma 18-250 for similar functionality.

cheers

[abitfishy]

I have the 18-270 and as an all rounder they are great for the price.

[Kym]

Any of the super zooms compromise a bit of image quality and speed (small f/stop numbers); but is that compromise significant?

A: Probably not while your learning and they are very convenient and value for $$$.

Eventually you will want faster glass, but by then you will know why, and will still use the 18-250 from time to time.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/293-tamron-af-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-macro-canon-lens-test-report--review?start=2

[LYDIA]

thanks heaps for your help :) really much appreciated!
definitely made me a little more confident :) will let you know how i go :)

[soulman]

It's perhaps worth noting that the main quality advantage of an SLR over a good compact is determined by lenses and that this class of lens is not one that will give you a noticeable improvement. I would recommend something like Canon's 28-135 over this, or, even better, a 50mm f/1.8 (best value) or f/1.4. Sure it's fixed focal length, but you will get really sharp images that make it worth the trouble of carrying an SLR. A greater focal length range is not necessarily an advantage. A 50mm lens may not 'cover' every situation, but the shots you get with it will not be limited by the lens and it's one you won't grow out of. Most of the great photojournalism of the 20th century was shot with fixed short focal length lenses.

The 40D is a great little camera and it will produce outstanding results with good glass. A simple lens to start with will help you to hone your skills much better than a super-zoom because it will force you to put your attention toward the image rather than the equipment. It will reward your diligence much more too! :)

[Kym]

It's perhaps worth noting that the main quality advantage of an SLR over a good compact is determined by lenses and that this class of lens is not one that will give you a noticeable improvement

Not quite correct, if you work within the limits of almost any lens you can get great results. I.e. don't use it wide open.
Refer: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Appendix_E_-_How_to_obtain_tack_sharp_images

Even the best primes can be slightly soft at the edges wide open.
Also for beginners the main learning goals are composition and exposure and not so much pixel peeping.

The OP has said they want a lens for travel and one thing to avoid is changing lenses - so its a reasonable compromise.

I agree a 50/1.8 or similar is a great thing to add to your kit, I just don't think it will but it for the travel requirement.

[soulman]

...if you work within the limits of almost any lens you can get great results.Not really. Good if you're careful, yes; fine for some uses, sure; but not great. I think you can get good results if you define 'within the limits' of a super zoom as being a small part of its range and only with certain subjects, which kind of limits its value. High quality lenses have many advantages, such as contrast & colour to name just two, and no amount of working within limitations can remove those differences. Sure, one can get reasonable results from most lenses if they're used carefully, but that takes a bit of skill to do and the same can be said for compact cameras, which is the point I was making.


Also for beginners the main learning goals are composition and exposure and not so much pixel peeping.Which is exactly why I suggest a fixed lens. It makes you think about your image and how to get what you want, rather than your equipment.


The OP has said they want a lens for travel and one thing to avoid is changing lenses - so its a reasonable compromise.And another reasonable compromise could be to forego a wide range of focal lengths so that what you do capture will make good use of the equipment you're lugging. I carry a very limited range of focal lengths if I'm not travelling specifically for photography - either a 16-35 or 24-105 on a full frame - and it is absolutely my preferred compromise.

[doombaj01]

Changing lenses is not something that is always easy to do. Time is an important factor, for example. The all-round lens has the ability to get a shot, where the lens changer might be left without a shot. There are also considerations of dust and rain getting into the camera that might preclude lens changes. If lens changing isn't an issue, then go with a long lens on the camera and a wide one in the bag. Why ? - because long lens subjects tend to run away (eg birds) but wide angles don't tend to go very far, so there is time to change. For travel, one cannot always carry a swag of lenses. I just carried 5kg of camera gear over the Overland Track in Tassie, but not everyone wants to do that. The 18-250 was the versatile lens that spent most of its time on the camera as it gave me the greatest flexibility of catching whatever came up next. It was the only lens I used on the Kokoda Track 3 years ago - weight and lens changing was an issue that needed to be managed. Yes, there are some performance compromises (eg vignetting at wide angle), but, as Kym said, they are often not that significant in comparison to the versatility.

[Lear]

I purchased the sigma 18-250mm after lots of comparing with tamron, canon,etc. I read lots of reviews both amateur and professional before purchasing my lens and I have been really happy with it. even more happy after reading a british photography magazine that did a test on a bunch of zoom lenses and rated this one as their best on test!!

[FallingHorse]

I have used a friends Tamron 18-250 on a couple of ocassions. I thought it was a versatile lens, suitable for what you plan especially if you don't want the hassle of changing lenses or carting a heavier L lens around. I found the Tamron suffered from "lens creep" which I found annoying.

[soulman]

...there are some performance compromises (eg vignetting at wide angle), but, as Kym said, they are often not that significant in comparison to the versatility.I very much agree with you. I just go a step further with this thinking and suggest that if you're prepared to make that kind of compromise, then save yourself a lot of bother and expense and carry a high quality compact. This is because your results will be much the same for most purposes and you will have less to think about and get in between you and and your subject. Conversely, if you're going to lug an SLR then I think make it worth your while and use decent lenses because you're not getting any obvious advantage otherwise. A fixed focal length can be a great limitation to have.

[LYDIA]

All of your comments are great! So keep them coming! :)

I'm leaning towards a.. Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
I had a borrow of someone elses and thought it was great.

[doombaj01]

I very much agree with you. I just go a step further with this thinking and suggest that if you're prepared to make that kind of compromise, then save yourself a lot of bother and expense and carry a high quality compact. This is because your results will be much the same for most purposes and you will have less to think about and get in between you and and your subject. Conversely, if you're going to lug an SLR then I think make it worth your while and use decent lenses because you're not getting any obvious advantage otherwise. A fixed focal length can be a great limitation to have.

Thanks, soulman, but I don't think you are agreeing because you seem to be missing the point of what I wrote. Every lens is a compromise. The difference between an SLR and a P&S is that SLR users get to choose the compromises they wish to make. And, there is nothing wrong with having the versatile lens on the camera, and changing to more specialist lenses as required for particular situations. In situations where lens changes are not readily possible because of logistics, weather, time etc, the compromises of the versatile lens can make a difference between getting a shot or not. Personally, I'll go with getting the shot off in the first place rather than just missing it completely. If one develops a familiarity with a lens, and understands its limitations, then one can also choose to be more selective about the way it is used when on the camera.

[pixy]

I have the Sigma 18-250, the image quality is quite good in good light it will take 100% crops, I will not disagree that primes are give better IQ but if you limit your-self to primes it will be difficult to carry or buy what will cover that range.I have five primes ranging from 24-400 and still use zooms for the versatility it is not always possible to change you position to get a shot.

[screamer]

Cannot help you with the lens, but I have the 40D which I also purchased second hand a few years ago. Great camera to cut your teeth on. Not missing too much compared to models.

[soulman]

Thanks, soulman, but I don't think you are agreeing because you seem to be missing the point of what I wrote.No, I understood and agreed with your views and thought you offered good advice. I just had something to add.


...there is nothing wrong with having the versatile lens on the camera...in situations where lens changes are not readily possible because of logistics, weather, time etc, the compromises of the versatile lens can make a difference between getting a shot or not. Personally, I'll go with getting the shot off in the first place rather than just missing it completely.I still agree and I'm still not advocating carrying a bag full of lenses. A large focal length range is only one kind of versatility though; A simple, fast lens with a fairly natural perspective is also quite versatile and useful in a wide range of situations. One could just as easily miss a great shot by having too slow a lens as by not having exactly the right focal length.


I'm leaning towards a.. Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
I had a borrow of someone elses and thought it was great.I've heard these are quite a decent lens and I would imagine the optical quality would be better than any 18-250. You might also want to check out the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, which seems to be very highly regarded (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=408&sort=4&cat=27&page=1) though a bit dearer.

If you think you can live without the wide-angle end of the range, the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, is also a great walk around lens. I had one when I had my 40D and they were great together. Down the track you could add an EF-S 10-22, another great lens, and have most things well covered.

I still reckon you should think about a 50mm lens though. The "kit" lens that came with an SLR for years was a 50mm and the change to offering zooms as standard was not made because it was better for photographers. 50mm lenses are a bit different on a 40D than a full frame or film camera - they're effectively a short telephoto lens on the body that you have - but they are cheap, fast and quite handy. Try and borrow one of those if you can maybe.