Sigma/Tamron 18-200 mm zoom quality?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by eduardphoto, May 11, 2005.

  1. I know hyperzooms are not the best quality, but how bad are actually
    these 2 lenses?

    I currently cover that range (and more) with 17-40f/4L, 50f/1.8 and
    70-300 IS DO. I'm looking at getting some all-around lens for
    hiking, etc.

    How bad is the Sigma 18-200 compared with the 70-300DO? How about
    the Tamron?
     
  2. Here you go:

    http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/04/07
     
  3. The link went nowhere!
     
  4. Edward, sorry I'm off topic but how do you like your DO lens? How's it compare to the 17-40 and 50 in terms of color, sharpness and bokeh? Thanks, Bob.
     
  5. The DO is good. It less sharper than the other 2, and the bokeh is not the greatest in the world. But it is small, lightweight, focuses fast enough, and gets more than decent quality images. (yes, the 70 is sharper, but it is also bulkier, heavier and shorter at the longer end)

    I wouldn't trade the 70-300 DO for any other zoom in that range.
     
  6. I am an old fashion guy. If I were to go light I'd opt for 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + 135/2.8.

    Sorry, I hate hyperzooms. I will never use them and thus will never recommend one. I guess it's kind of a mental block :)

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     

Share This Page

1111