Im thinking of getting one. That or an 18-200. Of course everything I read about an 18-200 says you get better stuff with the 18-55/55-250 combo. I just think it would be easier to carry around one lens.
as part of primemania, i recently picked up the canon 14mm f2.8 markII, expensive yes, used all the time, no, but when you need wide, it does what it does absolutely top notch unfortunately katie, one lens does not do it all, so you kind of end up making a choice, one fork leads down the road of carrying around a bag of lenses, for me right now primes in varying lengths, the other, a 3 zoom setup, maybe the tokina 11-16, and the other 2 for your needs and budget although as a canon ef-s shooter, i can tell you you can't go wrong with that 10-22, over on my phanfare thread for the med cruise, all those shots were done with a 3 lens bag, the 10-22, the 17-55 f2.8 IS, and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS, in the bag with an xti body, made for a reasonably light euro touring bag
I use my 14-24 more than I thought I would [nb]not including the architectural photography I do at work[/nb]. ; In that case it all comes down to what level of quality you want and what imperfections you are willing to accepts as a result of the convenience of carrying only one lens. ; A lens like the 18-200 is certainly convenient, but its going to have some distortion at the two extremes. ; If your shooting style and subject matter allow you to hide the lens' imperfections than maybe the distortion doesn't matter and you get the lens. ; If not, then you are at the fork in the road that Gary described and you have a choice to make. ;
Probably it will level out after a while...but so far, I've had my 10-24 on my camera pretty much since I got it 2 months ago, looking for opportunities to use it. ; It's still novel, as it is such a drastically different style and technique of photography, and it's all still fun and interesting. I presume I'll quiet down once I get used to it, and then it will probably fall into regular rotation...I got it because I can really see it coming in handy on trips - notably at Disney and on cruises, where there may not be much space to back up and 'get it all in' and the wide can solve that problem. ; And I'll still use it artfully when I just want to play with perspectives or angles, because it can be really fun when you tilt the lens off the horizontal or vertical axis. Though I'm predicting later this week when I'm at Disney that I'll be using it a ton...because I've never shot wide angle at Disney before!
I got the Tokina 11-16 right before going full frame- it was kind of cool to have but like the fisheyes I have had it got some new toy play and then kind of sat in the bag. ; I have a 20mm f/2.8 which is fairly wide on FX but I rarely use it.
I'm a Nikon shooter so the following is based on lenses using that mount. ; Canon has similar or comparable lenses. I use the Tokina 11-16 a lot since I got it. ; I usually do things like put it on and shoot with it for a few hours and see what I can get when I go to events like the NY State Fair. ; I had a lot of fun with it at WDW during Mousefest. ; You get a whole new way of looking at the world when using an ultra wide angle (UWA) lens. ; If you are not sure you'd use one, I recommend renting one from Lensrentals.com (a Pixelmania sponsor). Kaite, a note on the 18-200mm IS/VR lens: I absolutely love my Nikon version. ; It's the perfect travel lens and all around workhorse on my DX body camera. ; Many panned it as being soft, etc. but I never found it to be a problem. ; I know many pros use it to keep their camera bag light when traveling. ; I have gone to WDW and other places with it as my only lens. ; If you search around TMIP, I have threads about the Tokina's 12-14 f/4 and 11-16 f/2.8 UWA lenses and the Nikon 18-200VR. ; Also there's reviews in the equipment articles here at TMIP, too.
Coming from the Sony/Minolta mount side, I have to say I agree on the walkaround lens. ; I've used the Sony 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 since day one (I puchased it with my camera body) and it has been a fantastic lens. ; I've used it in nearly every conceivable situation, and it spends about 65-70% of the time on the camera as the main and go-to lens. ; Unless I'm using another lens for specific purposes, the 18-250 is the default. ; I've used it for landscapes, portraits, night shots, high ISO and slow shutter, wildlife and birds, travel, indoor, etc. I personally haven't had problems with softness or other issues - it outperforms the much smaller range 18-70 kit handily. ; The minor compromises are slightly more distortion at full wide (which really only affects architectural-style shots or similar straight-line shots), and a little slow for low light (though I have used it handheld at night at ISO800 & 1600 and can get very good results...it just takes a bit more effort and forethought). ; But the convenience of a single lens that can go from wide to super-tele, and be no larger than a typical 30mm F1.4 prime, is rather amazing. ; Really, the lens is heavier and maybe an inch and a half longer than the standard kit lens...all that range and ability in a single, light, easy to handle package - the perfect travel and all-purpose lens! BTW, mine is Sony branded, but is actually made by Tamron, which sells the 18-250, and newer 18-270, for other bodies as well. ; I don't think you get stabilization on the Tamron though, which fortunately for me comes in the body on my camera.
There you go! ; I didn't follow whether Tamron was doing VR for Nikon mount. ; I've heard, BTW, better reviews for the 18-250 than for the 18-270...the curious bit would be whether the 18-270 is basically identical to the 18-250 within the 18-250 range, and the telephoto for 250-270 gets really soft or distorted. ; If so, then the 18-270 would to me still be worth a recommend, since you still get the 18-250 quality and just don't use that last 20mm. ; But if adjusting to squeeze in the extra 20mm on the long end caused the wide end to be further compromised, then I'd tend to recommend finding an 18-250 around somewhere.
Ive given up the idea of purchasing an 18-200 and am looking into a wide angle lens. The Canon 10-22 is a bit pricey for me so Im going back and forth between the Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 10-24!
You can't really go wrong with either one - both are good, solid lenses for the money. ; If there is any chance at all, try them both out and see how they look to you. ; But I wouldn't worry about getting a bad one - they're both nearly equals and my experiences with both Tamron and Sigma lenses has been great so far.
Ive read good things about both but have my concerns about the Sigma since Ive read about so many people getting "bad copies" of the Sigma. Although Im such an amateur would I know? ; Stay tuned!
I have the 17-85mm lens that came with my camera; ; I do like to use it wide open often when I am taking landscape photos. ; I have thought about getting one of the wider lenses, but I have not convinced my self I really need it. ; Besides I'm saving for a full frame camera and might just wait until after that happens to get a wide lens for that.
