[SonicHedgehog]

As the title says. This will be my first lens on my 40D. My intention is to learn with this lens and then buy some more specialist ones later on.

Thanks

[Yandros]

Hmm, I'm not sure if I'd go for either actually.

You gain in portability and convenience, but lose out on image quality. If you're likely to be using your 40D when on holiday with family and friends, who'll be driven nuts by you carrying a bag of lenses, and you asking to stop while you swap...get a superzoom. Even if you buy more expensive ones later, an 18-200/250 will get used when you're 'going casual'.

If you think you'll get away with a 2 lens bag, and the occasional lens swap, I'd personally go for a two lens solution, and get something that goes to 300mm. In my experience, apart from my macro shooting, I tend to use 18-70 for the vast majority of shots, so I'd suggest getting something decent in this range - either image stabilised, 'fast' or both. The Canon 18-55 f2.8 IS would be my luxury choice, but I also note that the brand new Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS is getting good reviews...and is only £150

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

You're really only going to use 200mm+ for sports and wildlife, and 200mm is too short to do this properly. Both the Tamron and Sigma are f6.3 at the long end, and don't have image stabilisation (unless you go for the OS version of the Sigma). This means that you'll be constantly struggling to get enough light to keep your shutter speed up. How about something like the Canon EF70-300mm f4-5.6 IS, which is both stabilised and faster (and a fairly modest £309).

So, to summarise (and Canonites please correct me if necessary), I reckon an 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS+ 70-300 f3.5-5.6 IS (total price £459) will wipe the floor with a Tamron 18-250mm (£282).

[ryart]

I own a Tamron 18-250mm and use it on my 400D. I bought it specifically for taking on foreign cycle tours where weight, volume, and changing lenses often can be a real pain. I use it with a 10-22mm lens to give me a range to cover almost everything I might come across.

As with any lens choice it is a balance of price, quality and convenience in use. If you have loads of money and don't mind a sagging shoulder and a bit of faffing about than buy 2 or 3 short range zooms of the highest quality. Having said that, the quality of the Tamron is surprisingly good and much will depend on the final use for your pictures. Most of my holiday pictures end up being viewed on a Panasonic AE2000 projector and for that the quality is absolutely fine. If I wanted to make A3 prints and examine them closely then I might be a bit disappointed, but bear in mind that for prints I used to use Hasselblads and 5x4 sheet film cameras so I might still be a bit critical.

To get an idea of what to expect go to http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...anon/index.htm. If you compare the MTF charts with other reviewed lenses you can get a feel for comparitive quality. Whilst the barrel and chromatic abberations can look a bit scary these are easily corrected in software. You obviously don't get image stabilisation which might seem essential with f6.3 at the long end, but in practice I didn't miss it at all - nice to have but if you can learn to hold the camera steady hardly an essential. I have read some reports of auto focussing problems with similar extreme zoom lenses, although I have experienced none with the Tamron 18-250.

In short an amazing lens for the price and range, but it can certainly be bettered by spending more - nothing changes there. Only you know what is good enough for you, and of course how much effort you want to put in to getting your pictures. Hope this helps but bear in mind that no-ones opinion beats popping down to a dealer and trying it out for yourself.

[SonicHedgehog]

Thanks for the replies chaps. I think we can summarise your posts by saying "it depends". I'm going to give it some more thought and postpone the purchase for another week or so. I hate wasting money so would rather wait and get it right.

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

Thanks for the replies chaps. I think we can summarise your posts by saying "it depends". I'm going to give it some more thought and postpone the purchase for another week or so. I hate wasting money so would rather wait and get it right.

Nip down to your local dealer & try the Sigma 18-200 OS. It is pin sharp all the way through.

[Torpedo]

Just picked one, 18-200mm OS, up from Jessops. It's currently in their sale, at £299.99, which brings it down to what most other internet retailers are selling it for. However, there's a £25 of £300+ spend code going around the internet, so added a pack of batteries for 99p, and used the voucher. Also, going to get £10 cashback on the purchase too. So in the end, it'll cost me £265

(Not sure if I can mention the specifics of getting the various discounts, so have not. But they are eaily availble via a search).

[Pirate!!]

Choices between the two . . the Tamron for me.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

I think we can summarise your posts by saying "it depends".

Sorry about that , its easy to make a definitive suggestion but in most cases they aren't particularly valuable for someone else. Re-reading your original post, a wide range zoom is a good idea to find out in practice what focal lengths you like using, and then make a more informed choice of what zoom range suits you if you feel the need for better quality.