Superzooms then - anyone have / had one ?

[Karv]

As I don't "do" photography properly, and largely don't plan on doing much other than walking about, taking random shots, I'm after a superzoom lens so I don't have to worry about changing lenses in and out all the time.

The options in the running are these:
Canon 18-200
Tamron 18-270
Sigma 18-200 (doesn't get rave reviews)
Tamron 18-200 (superceded twice now, so its nce and cheap at least + some cashback and 5 year guarantee).

Does anyone have any experience with any of the above, any comments / pros and cons and any sample pictures you can post would be much appreciated.

I'm at the stage of wanting the canon most, if I can get one at the right price, or alternatively the Tamron 18-270 (damn thats alot of zoom).

I've read just about all the reviews on the net for each, and don't currently think any of the distortion/CA/etc will present too much of a problem for my everyday photgraphic exploits, but if an when that does present itself, I'll be getting a chubby about some proper L glass instead.

Many thanks in advance ;)

Karv

[IronRon]

I like you ..dont know to much about photography.. but i have a canon 10d. used to have a 5D. but got rid off..if you can afford it i would go for the canon L glass everytime. it holds it price well if you get fed up with it, & wont to sell .

[popsandme]

whatever you do dont get a minolta 70/210.....the quality of the zoomed shot aint that good...ive heard good and bad about the tamron but if i had the money i would go for a sigma, and if i had a canon camera body i would go stick to the canon...david bailey i am not....good luck in your choice mate

[Puffin]

Canon with Canon every time, some of the Tamrons will be a waste of cash.

[celticchris]

had a tamron superzoom for my hols attached to my canon 450d - rubbish! and very heavy - only good in very bright lighting conditions - and on checking images the lens was quite soft - you get what you pay for! Canon lenses are good, as too are sigma

[liz]

I have had Nikon cameras for some years now. A long time ago I had a Tamron lens which was, at that time good....but I wouldn't want one now. I have a sigma lens which I am pleased with, but the best choice has to be matching camera and lens.

[coenwolf]

karv you don't say what body its for ,but i will presume canon ,if correct your choice of lenses is based on the wrong criteria ,none of the lenses you mention are worth even thinking about ,my suggestion would be mid range zooms ,the canon 55-250is mk2 is a lens that has rave reviews within its price range and is remarkably cheap around the £150 area or less brand new ,the canon 70-300mm.is is also good but heavier and pricier also prone to damage easily ,personally i would go for for the 55-250 having used one i know its superb .just go on flickr and do a search for the lens you will see what people get from them .if you need a wider angle zoom at the bottom end then go for a cheaper one as well

[Karv]

Yes, its a canon 550D, and ideally I don't want to be swapping lenses at all, so I really do want to cover 18-200(+). Being an APS-C sensor, using a full-frame lens will have more odd results than I want to deal with, and I know I'm seriously limiting my choice due to budget but until I can be sure its the right kind of lens for what I want, I don't want to part with vast amounts of cash for anything better.
If I find I don't do very much telephoto stuff at all, I'll perhaps consider something like the 24-105L as a next lens, but at the moment I do miss having the capabilities of my old bridge camera's 18x zoom, whent taking pics of my daughter doing Gymnastics competitions.
I'm pretty sold on the Canon 18-200 to be honest (thanks all for your comments) and will follow up when I can get my hands on one with some pictures.

Flickr sounds like a good idea though, thanks, theres a couple of other lenses I want to have a look at too, like the 17-85 USM and the 18-135 canon.

[coenwolf]

right lets get it right on the nitty gritty karv ,my lad had one of these 18-200is ones and it has now been sold on e/bay for spares or repairs ,total waste of time the a/f went doolally on it ,its your money but as i said the 55-250is although cheaper punches far above its price range and is a better all rounder .if you had a nikon then there 18-200 is a different beast ,but you haven't .
just because the lens says canon doesn't mean a thing these days unless its L glass .if your going for any other maker go for sigma there after sales service is second to none ,i.e canon charge around £200+ for virtually any repair ,sigma will be a third of that and a faster turnaround to with repair men that try to sort out the problem before you send it back i.e over the phone

[Karv]

55-250 doesn't exactly have a "wide" angle to it though, I do really want the moon, on a stick - I know it won't be the best lens doing everything, none of the above would be superb IQ across the whole range, but I don't want to be changing lenses in and out. If I wen't out with an idea of what I would be taking pics of, then I could select the right lens, but in this instance I'm looking for a "does pretty much everything ok" lens.