350D Lens Upgrades

[PaulSLH]

I use a Canon 350D, and currently have the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm) and the EF 55-200mm USM. I was wondering if it would be worth selling both and getting the Tamron 18-250mm to replace them. I guess the upgrade would cost about £100-£150, depending on what I could get for my old lenses.

Is the Tamron a better lens than the Canon ones? I've read a few reviews that seem to suggest it probably is?

I don't think there's much point in paying the money just to save swapping lenses occasionally, but if the lens is better quality than my current ones, and offers a longer option as well, then does it seem like a good idea on my (very limited) budget?

Or would it be better to just buy a decent lens, with around 18-70 range (which I probably use most), and wait to upgrade the longer lens? I don't think I can buy two lenses that would cover the range of the Tamron, at a better quality, and for the same price?

 

[RobertP]

Welcome to the forums

One lens with that range seems quite tempting but as your photography improves then your desire for quality in the image will too. That huge zoom range comes at the price of image quality. I've never owned one so can't speak from experience but I've noticed that nearly everyone that buys a lens with 10x or so zoom range ends up selling it and getting standard range replacements.

Unless you got a bad 'copy' the kit lens is a lot better than its plastic body would have you believe. I'd suggest holding on and saving a bit more for a better quality replacement with a decent maximum aperture like f2.8.

If you must buy something and want to see some image quality the the 50mm f1.8 is very sharp and will come in handy for low light and portraits.... it is also pretty cheap

 

[Moos3h]

I'd check out the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8. Used, these regularly go for about £150

I've a/b'd mine with my 17-40L and I'm jiggered if I can tell the difference...

Cheers,
James

 

[PaulSLH]

Ok, looks like it's probably best to go for slightly better quality.

I've seen a review ( http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/1850vs1770 ). That compares the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 pretty favourably with the more expensive 18-50mm f2.8 EX. Seems like it might be a pretty good option if it really is as good?

 

[walls]

I had the 17-70mm for a trip to china - wanted something small and versatile. Flogged it on ebay when I got back but great lens. Good in low light although not exactly snappy focus but lens was quite predictable. A friend who was with me was using a 24-70L ( i didn't quite have the enthusiasm to carry a big brick around with me) and to be honest pictures in the same situation were very comparable, if a little less sharp and a slightly yellow cast - but easy sorted in photoshop. It does have quite bad distortion at the wide end though, but maybe it's something you may like/can easily live with. Its 'macro' capabilities add to its versatility.

I think it may be as sharp as the 18-50 EX but perhaps not the newer macro incarnation. I also have a tamron 28-75mm which is sharper but sometimes soft at the edges, more neutral colour and perhaps more punch straight out of the camera. If you don't mind losing the wide end this may be an option and something you can compensate for with the kit lens? These go for a little over your budget on ebay, but not much more.