| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2008 12:10:43 AM · #1 |
i have been feeling very limited with my Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II because of the poor quality glass etc .. and wanting something with the same scope but much better quality..
i dont think canon make an 18-200 .. i want the wide angle and the 200mm zoom in the one lens ..
i've just seen this brilliant lens but its made by nikon .. Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S DX VR II.. this might seem like an ignorant question, but are there adaptors that can make this lens work on my canon 400D? ....
i'm thinking that the answer will be 'not likely' ... but i live in hope !!
then there's this sigma for canon .. Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon .. this seems like a very good lens .. i've seen some of the photographs taken with it ..
i dont want a very large lens or another tamron .. the size of the nikon and the sigma seem ok ...
can anyone give me some advice please ... :)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 12:13:01 AM · #2 |
| That lens is one place Nikon has Canon beat in a big way. That is the ultimate walk around lens. |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:05:38 AM · #3 |
| I saw Canon is starting to sell the EFs 55-250 soon, so might be worth a look. You lose the short end from the others but the IQ seems to be good from the reviews I saw. |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:06:42 AM · #4 |
The adapter I found to get the Nikon lens to work on my Canon is called a Nikon D80 ;)
Seriously, I switched to Nikon just for that lens! (Well, I only had the Rebel XT; the Nikon D80 viewfinder is amazing in comparison.)
I do miss my Canon 10-22 on the Nikon; the Sigma 10-20 though is a nice lens (though not "as" nice) and helps to make up for it.
I'm surprised about the Tamron not being good though. The Tamron 18-250 seems to get really good reviews.
And while I liked my Sigma 18-125, it broke prematurely (not from handling, though I did use it a lot), and only had a 1 year warranty. The Nikon 18-200 has a 5 year warranty. It's a very nice lens.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:31:42 AM · #5 |
Yes, I've been seriously thinking about getting one of those 'D80' adaptors, but I haven't committed myself to the switch yet. The 10-22 was next on my shopping list, and I'll be sad not to have it as an option in my future arsenal.
Anyway, back to the OP, the Sigma 18-200 is certainly superior to the Tamron from everything I've seen. Sigma also have an OS version (image stabiliser) which is tempting. However, don't rule out the Tamron 18-250. The 18-250 is said to be a very good lens against it's competitors, and I believe it is much better than the Tamron 18-200.
But yes, the Nikon is definitely the pick in this range, and you can't get anything for Canon to match it. :( |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:33:03 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The adapter I found to get the Nikon lens to work on my Canon is called a Nikon D80 ;) |
: ) Ha ha!
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 01:34:12 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 08:20:45 AM · #8 |
Just keep in mind, no matter the manufacturer, you don't get that kind of "zoom range" without trade-offs in quality. Primes are the sharpest lenses for a reason. And the sharpest zooms only have short zoom range. Anything that goes from wide angle to zoom is going to involve a lot of CA (chromatic aberration) on the wide end and probably soft focus on the long end.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 02:38:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The adapter I found to get the Nikon lens to work on my Canon is called a Nikon D80 ;) |
LOL LOL !!!
my mind was actually going in that direction but the exercise would be much too expensive .. i think i remember dreaming about it last night ..!!!
anyway thanx everyone for the info .
from reading the write-ups on both the tamron & the sigma the tamron is definitely an inferior lens for a few reasons .. thanks lisa  lentil for the link, but i think the tamron is more for ppl who arent that worried about grain or getting the very best image they can .. more for the amateur who isnt in dpc !!!!! ... lol lol
thanks david  surfdabblerbut apparently the 18-250 still isnt up to the sigma in quality ...
i'm going to check out either the Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC for Canon or the Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon today at our local camera shop .. i'm not sure which one they have there .. they're going to let me try it out so i can see how the photographs look on my home computer .. then i'll decide ..
i'm pretty excited about this .. it was getting more than annoying changing over from the Tamron 18-200mm to the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro all the time .. to the tamron especially for the wide angle shots and back to the canon in case i was going to want to crop and of course for the macro .. cropping after using the tamron gives a very ordinary result .. :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-09 14:44:01.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2008 08:08:32 PM · #10 |
If you're serious about this range in one lens, I'd have to say that the Nikon D40x + 18-200 would be an awesome deal. And really not TOO expensive when you factor in possibly selling the Canon system.
However, more practically speaking (and not wanting to start anything with the Canon people here), I think you'd probably really enjoy a couple good quality primes. But from the sounds of it, you want to keep it simple and stick with one lens.
Any time you get up to 10x zoom factors, you're going to make compromises though... |
|
|
|
02/09/2008 08:25:28 PM · #11 |
| The range is nice and it's tempting to have a single lens for walk around, but a 200mm 5.6 (or 6.3) is useless IMO. Even with VR or IS, while it takes care of camera movement at slow shutter speeds, it does nothing for moving subjects. |
|
|
|
02/10/2008 02:15:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The range is nice and it's tempting to have a single lens for walk around, but a 200mm 5.6 (or 6.3) is useless IMO. Even with VR or IS, while it takes care of camera movement at slow shutter speeds, it does nothing for moving subjects. |
i used the camera shop's Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon today .. i've downloaded the photographs i took with the sigma & i'll have to open some in photoshop see how well they compare to the tamron ...
but i'm impressed with the reviews on that particular lens ..
i have the canon 100mm 2.8 macro but i wanted another lens with the wide angle and some zoom as a second lens .. one where i can crop the photographs without losing as much quality as i do with the tamron ..
i do like to take moving subjects .. and i'm wondering about your comments ..
"Even with VR or IS, while it takes care of camera movement at slow shutter speeds, it does nothing for moving subjects."
can you be more specific .. i'm not that knowledgeable about the theory of photography .. also the sigma i've been looking at gets f3.5 at 18mm wide angle ?? .
i realise that i cant get everything i want in one lens but i was thinking that with the canon 100mm macro and the sigma 18-200 i'd sort'v have all bases covered for wot i want to shoot ...
if the sigma 18-200 is a lens that doesnt handle moving subjects well, then i'd like to know why not .. and is there an 18-200 that does .. ?? :)
|
|
|
|
02/10/2008 03:00:28 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by roz:
i do like to take moving subjects .. and i'm wondering about your comments ..
"Even with VR or IS, while it takes care of camera movement at slow shutter speeds, it does nothing for moving subjects."
can you be more specific .. i'm not that knowledgeable about the theory of photography .. also the sigma i've been looking at gets f3.5 at 18mm wide angle ?? .
i realise that i cant get everything i want in one lens but i was thinking that with the canon 100mm macro and the sigma 18-200 i'd sort'v have all bases covered for wot i want to shoot ...
if the sigma 18-200 is a lens that doesnt handle moving subjects well, then i'd like to know why not .. and is there an 18-200 that does .. ?? :) |
With moving subjects (such as sports) you need at least a 1/500 shutter speed to stop the action and have no blur, even with vibration reduction. That's why you see the sports photographers on TV with those incredibly big lenses. In order to achieve a 1/500 shutter speed you need a lot of light or a wide aperture lens or a high ISO . Those large lenses at sporting events are f2.8 or f4.0, they are also 300mm to 600mm focal lengths.
So, if you're shooting a 200mm lens at f6.3, you'd have to have some serious amount of light to shoot at 1/500 shutter speed. Forget about shooting available light indoors.
Does this mean that the 18-200 is a bad lens? Of course not. The range is awesome. But the things you shoot at 200mm tend to be nature and sports. And considering that the Sigma and the Tamron or not VR type lenses, you'll need a 1/250 shutter speed to shoot at 200mm hand held, even if the subject is stationary. You are not going to get that very often if f6.3 is your widest aperture.
There is no lens that is going to have that kind of range and be optimal at all focal lengths. If the range is what you want, just be willing to take the limitations that go a long with it.
Just some things to consider.
Message edited by author 2008-02-10 03:04:26. |
|
|
|
02/10/2008 03:24:44 AM · #14 |
oh yes of course .. 6.3 at 200mm ... silly me ..
and yes i now understand the problem of moving subjects and the need for more light than would usually be available ..
therefore shooting at less zoom would give me a wider aperture and then if the glass of the lens is good enough i could crop to get me closer ?? .. this is the problem with the tamron .. when cropped the resulting image can be very poor quality and grainy .. i can crop quite a lot when i use the canon 100 macro tho .. its brilliant ... :)
|
|
|
|
02/10/2008 10:52:32 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
So, if you're shooting a 200mm lens at f6.3, you'd have to have some serious amount of light to shoot at 1/500 shutter speed. Forget about shooting available light indoors. |
The 18-200 is meant for a crop camera, so the minimum speed would be about 1/320 at 200mm.
I have the Sigma 18-200, its a great walkaround lens, the advantage is that you don't have to keep on switching lenses. IMO, optically its good, and probably better than any P&S. But if you're feeling limited by your 18-200, get a faster/better lens, like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or the 50 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.8 and keep the 18-200 for when you just want to take casual pictures. |
|
|
|
02/10/2008 11:23:55 PM · #16 |
Roz, I see that you are thinking about a Sigma. The glass quality and alignment seems to vary with them from sample to sample. If you decide on Sigma, then try to be sure that you can return the lens ( or lenses ) until you get a good one from the batch. I have a Sigma 400mm 5.6, which I am able to shoot fairly good images with in good light, but I can see that it has quite a bit of CA compared to the Nikkor ED lenses. It's sharp, but not as good as the Nikkor 300 ED cropped to the same image size when shooting from the same distance with both lenses. Camera stability has a lot to do with getting the sharpness when you go to a lens over 150 mm as well. I always use a monopod or tripod with the 300, unless there is enough light to shoot at at least 1/1500th sec. I can see a lot of difference in the sharpness when I try to hand hold a shot with the 300 mm, even at 1/1000 shutter speed when I blow up the image on screen or crop it a lot.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 12:00:18 PM EST.
