General discussion

Can one lens do it all?

Has any one any experience of, or can offer any advice about, the Tamron 18-270mm lens?
I have a Canon 500D and am very happy with everything so far but feel that maybe the kit lens (18-55mm) has some limitations so I am looking to purchase another lens. The Tamron I have mentioned above seems to be a good all round option but I am worried that a lens to cover all purposes might have a new set of problems, i.e. Jack of all trades but master of none.
Also I have been given contradictory information by 2 different shops, one says the Tamron lens is better in all aspects than the Canon while the other shop has told me the colour definition will not be so good on the Tamron?
Any and all advice on the subject will be greatfully reeived as I don't have an endless budget so don't want to make an expensive mistake.

Discussion is locked
Reply to: Can one lens do it all?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Can one lens do it all?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Third party lens

You have to be somewhat careful trying to compare lens between canon and the other vendors. All vendors make crap and good lens so you get difference of opinion based on what is being compared.

You get what you pay for is very true for lens. The glass in a good lens is very very expensive and makes up most the cost difference no matter who makes it.

As you suspect a all in one lens does have its draw backs. Mostly the issue is that these lenses cannot pass as much light and may limit you ability to be able to get photos. This is mostly related to not being able to reduce the shutter speed enough to avoid using a tripod or get blur free photos of moving objects. These lenses also tend to focus slower again because of the amount of light allow.

The most common second lens people buy is a 70-200. All depends on how often you shoot at different distances and if carrying a second lens is a burden.

Still no matter the brand you buy make sure you buy he best lens you can possibly afford. A good lens today will still be a good lens tomorrow. This is why used professional lenses cost almost as much as new ones.

- Collapse -
Next lens

You have answered your own question, all-in-one ultra zoom lens is convenient but it is Jack of all trades but master of none.

Here is my preference in decending order with the most favorite at the top:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS (it is very sharp but I'll rather have f/2.Cool
Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L (one of the best priced L lens)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

- Collapse -
Depends on what you intend to do

If you need an excellent lens for semi-professional picture quality, such a zoom may not be the best choice. But if it's for everyday photography of your kids, vacation, etc. it certainly convenient and probably good enough. If you just make small prints, who will notice the difference?

CNET Forums