Which lenses for Rebel XT?

[Gekko4321]

After some extensive research, I am considering the purchase of a Rebel XT. I realize though that I have allot to learn when it comes to purchasing lenses for it. The below 3 options are relatively cheap alternatives to the higher price lenses I cannot afford. The first 2 appear to cover wide angle and approx. a 7x times zoom which seems like it would make life easier not having to switch lenses. Do you have any opinion on these 3 options for me?? I can't help but wonder why they are so much cheaper than other lenses out there. Do all of these include Macro options or is that a seperate lens unto itself? With an F-stop at 3.5 will that be sufficient for action/sports shots? Thank you very much for any and all help!!

1) Tamron AF 18-200 MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II lens; Retail $400
2) Sigma 18-200 MM F/3.5-6.3; Retail: $400
3) Sigma Twin Zoom Kit; 18-50 MM F/3.5-F/5.6 and 55-200 MM F/4.0-5.6; Retail: $259

[Ray Schnoor]

With an F-stop at 3.5 will that be sufficient for action/sports shots? Thank you very much for any and all help!!

1) Tamron AF 18-200 MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II lens; Retail $400
2) Sigma 18-200 MM F/3.5-6.3; Retail: $400
3) Sigma Twin Zoom Kit; 18-50 MM F/3.5-F/5.6 and 55-200 MM F/4.0-5.6; Retail: $259
First off, you will only have f3.5 at the wide end of the zoom, which I assume you will not be using very often for action/sports. As you get to the long end of the zoom, you will be at f6.3 for the first 2 lenses and f5.6 for the third lens. If you are taking shots outside during the day, it should be no problem. If you are taking shots inside an arena or at a night sporting event, it would depend on the lighting.

As to the quality of these lenses, I have seen posts where people like them along with posts where people do not like them. I personally would like to try the first 2 lenses you have listed along with a Sigma/Tamron 28-300 lens, but have not found the time yet. You would be best to try them out in the store. If you can take good shots without flash at the long end of the zoom at say 1/250 second in the store(the lighting isn't usually the best in there), chances are that you should be able to use these.
Ray.

[timmciglobal]

It all depends where you are shooting the sports. Keep in mind indoor photography is MANY MANY MANY levels of light less then outdoor. The sun is incredibly powerfull and you don't realize that till you get 1/1000th shutter speed outdoors and 1" indoors and say "wow"

The other lenses (mostly canon name brand) are more expensive because 1) they focus faster 2) they usually have better optical performance and 3) they have greater compatibility with canon cameras and as such are "premium" priced.

Does that mean another lens can't be good? No. I've had exceptionally poor experience with sigma line lenses and focusing issues (not to mention the sigma focus motor is VERY loud)

If I had to pick one of those lenses it would probably be the tamaron 18-200. Now if I didn't, I'd pick the the 70-200 F4L Lens (500$ or so) or the 28-135 IS

Both have good optical quality, the F4L is longer and sharper the 28-135 has a wider end and offers IS which is great @ 135 mm if you have the shutter speeds (the combination can produce very sharp results)

Tim

[NeoteriX]

I have the Sigma 18-200 and it's a pretty nice lens, very solid construction. Decent sharpness, especially if you shut the aperture down a couple stops from rull open. It is however, a bit slow, and unsuitable for most indoor photography. If you're looking for a decent fast lens, I've heard really good things about the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Apparently it's quite close to "L" sharpness :)

[eastbluffs]

It won't answer the specific questions you've asked, but the web site

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

has a ton of reviews for most current lenses fitting the Canon cameras.

NeoTreix is quoted as: "I've heard really good things about the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Apparently it's quite close to "L" sharpness"
The reviews by individuals at fredmiranda.com menion this lense often as a superior lense and with great satisfaction.

Also; lenses for Canon and Nikon offer the most choices so excellent choice going with Canon.

[aparmley]

While the Sigma 18-200 may prove to be useful, it really depends on what you plan to use the lens for that will determine your options... Considering the fact that you are looking at the 18-200 it sounds like you want a wide angle, maybe a little telephoto and everything in between without having to switch lens. So if thats the case and you need that convenience I would say look at that sigma very closely as it delivers good results. My next lens is going to be the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di. Fast and sharp.... If it ever gets back into stock ... After that I think I will be done lens shopping for a long while, unless I find that I need something wider. But if not then my next lens purchase may be the 70-200L F4 or the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX IF HSM....

[Bluedog]

Those compact wide - telephotos @ f/6.3 really don't impress me, especially when you'll most likely have to step 'em down to obtain sharpness while at the same time keeping the shutter above 1/200 sec.

[Rex914]

Someone mentioned looking at the 28-300 lenses, but I wouldn't. They have gotten very, very poor reviews, and the single biggest problem with them is that going past 200mm is a complete mess, leaving you essentially with a 28-200 lens. I'd still stick with the 18-200's even though they are more expensive than their 28-300 counterparts.

But realize that if you are indeed shooting sports and are using the tele end of these lenses, you may want to look at getting something faster. It will cost more and you lose convenience, but you have no choice.

[D70FAN]

Those compact wide - telephotos @ f/6.3 really don't impress me, especially when you'll most likely have to step 'em down to obtain sharpness while at the same time keeping the shutter above 1/200 sec.

I'm not sure that the difference between f5.6 and f6.3 means that much at 200mm on a $400 lens, vs. the utility of having an 11X zoom range. If you want a significantly faster (and sharper) 200mm lens then you give up the wide and mid-tele range for that half stop, or so, of shutter speed and about $700+ more in cost (70-200 f2.8).

Don't get me wrong, a good, fast tele zoom is a good thing. It's more of a question of value and utility in this case. The Sigma 18-200 seems to be a very competent lens, as is it's predecessor the 18-125. Shooting at f6.3 and f8 is not really a problem for most people. If you want low light and bokeh then use a thrifty fifty or a low cost Tamron 28-75 f2.8.

Shooting indoors? A good iTTL flash (and learning how to use it) can go a long way to improving on that slow lens for about $200-$300, and you are still money ahead. Mine even has a handy belt case. ;)

Again, I'm all for buying really good pro quality lenses (which is where I'm heading in my lens buying), but that takes experience (trying them and asking local professionals first) and money.