Down Sizing: I have the 18-55 and 70-300 Canon and a Sigma 150-500. I would like to get one lens to replace my Canons. I'm considering the 18-135 or the 18-200 Canon, maybe even third...

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

I have the 18-55 and 70-300 Canon and a Sigma 150-500. I would like to get one lens to replace my Canons. I'm considering the 18-135 or the 18-200 Canon, maybe even third party if i can get a good quality lens.

The 18-135 will leave me a little short, and the 18-200 a little long considering the 150 on my Sigma. Either way is fine with me though, just need some advise on a lens to do the job.

Someone with these lenses that could give me some feedback on this please?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

tdklex wrote:

I have the 18-55 and 70-300 Canon and a Sigma 150-500. I would like to get one lens to replace my Canons. I'm considering the 18-135 or the 18-200 Canon, maybe even third party if i can get a good quality lens.

The 18-135 will leave me a little short, and the 18-200 a little long considering the 150 on my Sigma. Either way is fine with me though, just need some advise on a lens to do the job.

Someone with these lenses that could give me some feedback on this please?

Maybe take a look at the Tamron 16-300mm, it covers more than your 2-lens range in one lens. Nothing wrong with focal length overlap like that when you consider the total difference in the two lenses in question.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The gap between 135 and 150 isn't much. That is how I'd select my two lenses. Are you looking at Canon L lenses, or?

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

romanticf16 wrote:

The gap between 135 and 150 isn't much. That is how I'd select my two lenses. Are you looking at Canon L lenses, or?

No, can't quite afford them yet, although i'd love the IQ. I really hate to give up my 70-300 IS. It's been so good to me, but i don't use it very much now, and i love my Sigma.

In theory, it seems like the 18-135 would have better IQ than the 18-200. Have you had or do you have either of these?

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

MT Shooter wrote:

Maybe take a look at the Tamron 16-300mm, it covers more than your 2-lens range in one lens. Nothing wrong with focal length overlap like that when you consider the total difference in the two lenses in question.

Yes, i'm really considering this one, given the fact it covers so much range. I guess it never hurts to have overlap, especially if you can get a really wide short end. I guess I'm just a little hesitant because of the wide focal range being soft at 300.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

tdklex wrote:

Yes, i'm really considering this one, given the fact it covers so much range. I guess it never hurts to have overlap, especially if you can get a really wide short end. I guess I'm just a little hesitant because of the wide focal range being soft at 300.

Even if there is a possibility of it going a little soft at the long end, you already have that covered well with the Sigma, right?

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

MT Shooter wrote:

Even if there is a possibility of it going a little soft at the long end, you already have that covered well with the Sigma, right?

You know, you're exactly right, lol! It's sharp at 300, guess i never considered that. Forgive me, my logistics don't always work the way they should.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

I personally love the 18-200mm. It's my default walkabout lens on my Canon 7D. The photos are clear and sharp, pretty much throughout the whole range. I do have the more expensive L series glass, but they stay in the case except for special occasions ....... the 18-200mm is my workhorse.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

Bob Yankle wrote:

I personally love the 18-200mm. It's my default walkabout lens on my Canon 7D. The photos are clear and sharp, pretty much throughout the whole range. I do have the more expensive L series glass, but they stay in the case except for special occasions ....... the 18-200mm is my workhorse.

Thanks for the info. It gets good reviews, as does the 18-135 for not too much more money. I've listed my lenses on CL. Which lens i go with depends on how much i get. I would really like the Tamron 16-300, but i think I'll probably stay with one of the two Canons.

amehta Loc: Boston

tdklex wrote:

I have the 18-55 and 70-300 Canon and a Sigma 150-500. I would like to get one lens to replace my Canons. I'm considering the 18-135 or the 18-200 Canon, maybe even third party if i can get a good quality lens.

The 18-135 will leave me a little short, and the 18-200 a little long considering the 150 on my Sigma. Either way is fine with me though, just need some advise on a lens to do the job.

Someone with these lenses that could give me some feedback on this please?

Do you really find yourself changing the 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses a lot? I don't think you gain any image quality with any of these options.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

amehta wrote:

Do you really find yourself changing the 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses a lot? I don't think you gain any image quality with any of these options.

No, not a lot, but sometimes miss shots from changing. I'm not expecting to gain IQ, just remain the same with only one lens. I don't know, i may be asking too much.

amehta Loc: Boston

tdklex wrote:

No, not a lot, but sometimes miss shots from changing. I'm not expecting to gain IQ, just remain the same with only one lens. I don't know, i may be asking too much.

I think sometimes we get overly concerned that we "miss shots". It is so easy to take 1000 shots in a week, what does it matter if we miss 3? It seems that you have three lenses which give you a lot of flexibility to shoot different things, you may be best served by simply using them. Get a lens which adds something to your photography, like an ultra wide angle, a macro, or a fast prime to use bigger apertures. Or a lens which does significantly improve the image quality over what you have now (Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC). Replacing your two lenses with a superzoom is a move sideways, not up.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

amehta wrote:

I think sometimes we get overly concerned that we ... (show quote)

You have a good point.

amehta Loc: Boston

tdklex wrote:

You have a good point.

Part of the discussions at the G.A.S. Support Group is about spending effectively, especially avoiding redundancy and increasing the fun. :-)

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

I have the 18-135, use it extensively, I think it is very nice and sharp. Not as fast as some of the lenses suggested but then not as expensive either. I highly recommend it.

I find that when coupled with the 55-250 I can cover all the bases better than with my Tamron18-270, which I sold.