buckscop Loc: Bucks County PA

I have a relatively new Canon 18-135 EF-S f/3.5., with a new Canon Rebel T7i. On the premise of 'bigger is better', would an addition of the Tamron 18-400 be useful or a waste of money. Except for the normal long distance scenic shot, most of my pictures are sports (youth basketball and football), family and vacation shots. At times, my football pics are yearning for a longer focal length. As a side note, I also have a 50mm and 85mm canon lens.

PS. I realize there were other Tamron posts, but upon checking they did not answer this question.

Great site and love all the useful advice and those that give it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

waste. Unless you want just one lens, you could do better with a lens that covers less total focal length for your youth sports needs. For less cost and better image quality (but shorter on the long end), look at the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM. For only slightly more money, better image quality (but more size & weight), find a used copy of the discontinued EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, the original rather than the v II.

If you want the best image quality along with cost, size, and weight, go with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. This lens have been out for a few years now, so look for used versions to save some money. This is the lens you'd buy once and never want for replacement.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Your premise that "bigger is better" is faulty.
What is "better" is what will let you do what you want to do that you can't do now.
A 400mm lens will give you an effective 640mm field of view on your Rebel, being a crop-sensor body. This will be very difficult to aim and hand-hold.
You don't need to go to the extreme. A 300mm lens will be easier to handle, provide a greater field of view (better to capture the action you want) and you can crop images later.

buckscop Loc: Bucks County PA

Thanks for your quick reply's guys. I'm just a senior amatuer, picking it up more in retirement. So when I head out it is usually with one lens generally knowing what I am shooting. For indoor sports, I might bring both the 50 & 85 low-light not knowing how close to the court I can get, then crop alot. Anything outside, its just the 18-135 for its 'everyday' usefulness close-to-far. My thought on the Tamron was the same, just further reach, useful for close ups of Grandmom across the cafe table from me, and for further out shots of the football action, scenery or animals etc.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you don't need to go to 400mm, the Sigma 18-300 at $399 new is my all around lens for a bit less $. Having this or the Tamron 18-400 covers the Canon 18-135 range plus. If you are satisfied with the IQ of those you might not ever use the Canon again. I have had great results with the Sigma.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For better IQ, I would look at the Tamron 100-400mm to use in concert with the 18-135......

sv3noKin51E

Buckscop, Lots of folks like the 18-400mm, I have the 18-300mm and love it. Have a 20 year old 200-400mm AF that reaches out and works great considering it's age. If you use the 18-400mm, I bet you'd be hooked:) Happy shooting, sv.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I use the 18-400 for general walk around family outings, traveling it does a great job in good light but slows down in low light, not the best for indoor sporting events, indoors a flash helps a lot . You may want to consider a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2

Another plus for me is that I have been able to get the 18-400 through security at Lambeau Field in Green Bay and Miller Park in Milwaukee

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I recently helped a friend sell his Tamron 18-400mm lens. I had to take some sample images with it to test it so that I could sell it knowing that it works as it should. I don't like people telling me that it's broken and wanting their money back. That said, I must say it felt like the cheapest lens I've ever put on a camera. It just felt like cheap plastic, and the zoom is NOT smooth. I took some pictures of some Gardenias in my back yard in full sun and it had the worse CA I've ever seen from a lens.

If you want close up pics of your grandmother sitting across the table from you then yes, this lens will be fine. If you want quality images, quality hardware, quality glass, then this is NOT the lens for you.

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

Would be good for a carry lens when you cannot bring any other equipment. I had a 18-250mm Tamron that worked just fine with 7D2 taking several great shots on 3 to 12 mile day hikes in rockies. And bumming around places like Duluth MN and North Shore of Lake Superior.
Kinda miss that lens as went with 7D2 when I sold it.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

A Direct Answer to your Direct Question, Buck:

IF you have the new EOS 18-135 IS USM - you already OWN the best 18-135 lens on the planet! If you have ANY other version, than that one … you might find better IQ over MOST of the range from that Tamron 18-400. You can also go to one of the other lenses suggested here, but several of them are quite a bit more expensive than the one in which you're interested. And, that probably won't work for you. Another Canon lens you should NOT overlook - is the 55-250 STM - which has gotten some rave reviews.

buckscop Loc: Bucks County PA

Mine is the usm.

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

Canon lenses for Canon Cameras....QUALITY, QUALITY, QUALITY! There's a reason they cost more than Tamron and Sigma lenses. The glass is of a higher quality. JUST SAYING! Just my opinion.
P.S. Also...purchase EF lenses so if you go Full Frame later you don't have to re-purchase your lenses.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You won't need a longer lens for youth basketball... In fact, indoors you will probably find your 85mm lens useful, for it's larger aperture. A 135mm f/2 or 70-200mm f/2.8 would be the longest lenses I'd use for basketball. (Note: T7i has Anti-Flicker mode for use under fluorescent and sodium vabor lighting, such as is used in many gyms. IT WORKS... use it! That feature was intro'd on 7D Mark II, but now is also found on 80D, 77D, T7i and all the current full frame cameras. More info about it here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13866.)

Field sports such as football or baseball are another matter. For that a lens that reaches 400mm will be VERY useful. Good zoom choices include the Canon 100-400mm "II" ($2049) or Tamron 100-400mm ($699 + $129 for optional tripod mounting ring. A problem might be night games... lower light conditions... because these aren't "fast" lenses. The Canon is up to 2/3 stop faster than the Tamron, though.... but it's still no speed demon. However, long telephoto lenses with f/4 or f/2.8 apertures are big, heavy and VERY expensive (i.e., Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8: $3400, Sigma 1.4X teleconverter $299. Canon 300mm f/2.8: $6099, Canon EF 1.4X III teleconverter $429. Canon 200-400mm f/4 w/1.4X: $10,999.)

More affordable, but less versatile are some primes such as the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM ($1199, but note there's no IS)... Or the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ($1349 plus $429 for EF 1.4X III).

Forget the 18-400mm. Those extreme range, "do it all" zooms tend to not do most things very well. In fact, among lenses of that type the Tamron is surprisingly good... but it's still slower focusing and very dim, compared to any of the above. The 18-400mm starts out at f/3.5, but the variable aperture reduces size very quickly as you zoom... in fact by about 89mm it's already f/5.6... more than 2 stops slower than your Canon 85mm f/1.8. Here's an honest review of the Tamron 18-400mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-18-400mm-f-3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-HLD-Lens.aspx. Be sure to use that site's image quality tool to compare how it performs against other lenses, such as those mentioned above. For example: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1145&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0. As you'll see, at focal lengths they share the Tamron simply doesn't have anything close to the image quality of the Canon 100-400 II! Of course, the Canon lens costs 3X as much!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The EF 18-135mm IS USM and the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM are optically identical and have exactly the same image quality (individual copy variations aside). The only differences are that the USM lens is 2X to 4X faster focusing than the STM version, and that the USM version was physically redesigned to be able to work with the optional PZ-E1 Power Zoom module (which only fits that lens, so far). The USM version uses Canon's newest "Nano USM", which is fast, smooth and quiet. (Canon has used that same Nanon USM drive on several other relatively new lenses, including the EF 70-300mm IS USM "II".)

The earlier, original EF 18-135mm IS (micro motor focus drive... i.e. NOT marked either "USM" or "STM") uses an older, less capable optical formula, can't focus as closely, plus has the even slower and noisier form of autofocus drive.

At similar focal lengths, EITHER EF-S 18-135mm IS STM or USM version will clearly out-perform the Tamron 18-400mm "do it all, just none of it particularly well" zoom. See for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1145&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=1045&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

In fact, although not as good as the newer versions, to my eye even the older EF-S 18-135mm IS (non-STM/USM) has better image quality than the Tamron 18-400mm. It's most noticeable in the corners and edges, less difference in the center of images.