[FarcicalFiend]

Complete newbie here just got into DSLR recently with a Canon Rebel Xs that I received for Christmas. Shortly after shooting some with the stock 18-55mm lens that came with it I picked up the 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens and I have been LOVING that so far. But I'm planning on heading out to Yellow Stone later this summer and wanted something more telephototastic. I've been looking at some of the Tamron lens since they carry a good bang/$$$ from what I've been told. And I wanted some feedback or suggestions:

I was looking at the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 with VC and the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 without VC and I was wondering if there were any other major differences I was missing. The price jump is staggering and I'm sure there is stuff I am missing, but I was also reading here that VC for less than 200mm is a bit of a waste?

Well feedback on that specifically or on other suggestions in the $300-600 price range are perfectly welcome.

[Dave W]

FarcicalFiend, on 28 March 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Complete newbie here just got into DSLR recently with a Canon Rebel Xs that I received for Christmas. Shortly after shooting some with the stock 18-55mm lens that came with it I picked up the 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens and I have been LOVING that so far. But I'm planning on heading out to Yellow Stone later this summer and wanted something more telephototastic. I've been looking at some of the Tamron lens since they carry a good bang/$$ from what I've been told. And I wanted some feedback or suggestions:

I was looking at the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 with VC and the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 without VC and I was wondering if there were any other major differences I was missing. The price jump is staggering and I'm sure there is stuff I am missing, but I was also reading here that VC for less than 200mm is a bit of a waste?

Well feedback on that specifically or on other suggestions in the $300-600 price range are perfectly welcome.

Welcome to the forum!

You might want to think about jumping to the Canon 70-200 F4 L lens for about $700. It's Canon's pro level zoom, and it's faster at the 200mm range than the Tamron's you've pointed out. Those are consumer rated lenses and fine for a lot of things, but the Canon L lenses are pro grade and truly remarkable quality.

[FarcicalFiend]

Dave W, on 29 March 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Welcome to the forum!

You might want to think about jumping to the Canon 70-200 F4 L lens for about $700. It's Canon's pro level zoom, and it's faster at the 200mm range than the Tamron's you've pointed out. Those are consumer rated lenses and fine for a lot of things, but the Canon L lenses are pro grade and truly remarkable quality.

Thanks for the insight - I'm not quite sure if I can sell the wife on the price tag. But I'm going to see what I can do. Maybe I'll throw in other birthday funds to get myself to that point.

[Chris Fullmer]

I bought that lens (the canon 70-200 f/4 L) and I love it to pieces. It works so much better than any consumer rated lens I've ever compared it to. If you plan on doing any fast action photography - wildlife or sports - I think you really need to look seriously at that lens for its fast focusing ability. I can focus on a bird in flight with it. Other lenses are often slower to focus, making it very difficult/painful to try to shoot anything that moves with any sort of speed.

So I'm sorry to not recommend one of the ones you listed. I know how budgets go, and too often it just isn't possible to go beyond a budget. But if you can swing it, I think you should. Good luck!

Chris

[cort]

Typically the wider the zoom range the lower the image quality, the 18-200 Tamron is a decent lens but you will see a definite difference in image quality between it and the Canon 70-200 f/4L is going to be huge. Also while it is not a fast lens I have been happy with the results from the stock 18-55 if you stop down a stop. I have replaced mine because I needed a faster wide angle.

[FarcicalFiend]

I assume this is the Canon 70-200mm in question? Linkie

[Dave W]

FarcicalFiend, on 30 March 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

I assume this is the Canon 70-200mm in question? Linkie

that's the one!

[JCFindley]

That lens WAS on sale at B&H last time I looked for 599..... NOT a bad price. But you can find it used I am sure and L glass is OH so sweet....

[Grenache]

Welcome.

I am confused by your stated need for something telephototastic for a trip that would seem to involve landscape shooting.

Generally, that is done with wide angle lenses. Your 18-55 is a good start, but you might need wider still. Tokina makes an 11/12-16 mm lens for ultra wide on a cropped sensor body. It is also pricey, but don't sweat that yet:

http://www.bhphotovi...8_AT_X_116.html

I concur on the Canon 70-200/4 if you really wanted telephoto. You can rent these lenses from lensrentals.com or borrowlenses.com for a modest amount of money...you could even rent both and be fresh out of excuses for not bringing back a ton of great shots.

Jim

PS. There is nothing on this Earth wrong with shooting landscapes with telephoto lenses (or shooting anything with any type of lens). That is how my brain works...right around 100mm, regardless of subject matter. However, I am certainly in the minority of approach to shooting.

[CNelson]

Not to muddy the water in this discussion but you might want to consider the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS. It's my walk around lens and produces excellent images. I also have the 20-200 f/2.8 and I love it. I use the 70-200 for a lot of uses including landscapes but I often find I need a wider angle than the 70mm provides. So, if you are wanting to shoot critters and want to zoom in on them from a safe distance think of the 70-200, if you want flexability for a wide range of landscape shots, consider the 24-105.

Chuck

[Sergei]

Oh for Pete's sake..

Don't go landscape shooting with super zooms.. all you will get is a bunch of fuzzy rubbish. Get yourself tripod and fixed focal length. Or 2-3x zoom.

[Peter Solano]

I agree with Sergei above.