Hi Ian,
I already have the 70-200mm f/4IS and I have paired that up with the 17-55 in the past. Even though the 55-250 is excellent (almost as good as the 70-300 IS) it is still a two lens system that I don\'t always want to carry.
I chose the 18-200 over the 17-55 partly because it covers all of my everyday shooting needs (family shots mainly). Also, I have changed the way I approach photography. I found myself always wanting the best possible quality image (sharpness etc) regardless of the situation, at all times. It means I haven\'t enjoyed photography as much as I would like to, and it also means that I would carry around at least 2 lenses even if it is a simple family outing, just in case one of the shots I get is some kind of award winner that needs to be blown up to 30 inches (it\'s never happened).
The 18-200 takes me down a peg or two and I am enjoying my everyday shooting more and less concerned with the sharpest I can get for the situation. I am getting shots that I didn\'t used to get because the range of the lens is so good. I still try to get the most out of the lens I have, but I relax more knowing it\'s the best it can do. I even shoot the 50D in Medium (8MP) frequetly because the lens doesn\'t demand a higher pixel count.
That said, if I went on an outing and planned to take some high quality photos (landscapes etc) then I would take more than one lens. I shoot aircraft sometimes and I use the 70-200 f/4L IS for that. Although, the 18-200 is quite acceptable even for that purpose.
The 18-200 is quite good compared to the 17-55 at the wide end. The edges aren\'t as good and the barrel distortion and CA are worse, but I can shoot in RAW and fix those if I really want to. For my normal print/email sizes, they are almost indistinguishable. Once newer camera bodies are released that do the CA and distortion correction in-camera, this lens may stay on the camera even more. The IS on the 18-200 is better than anything I have used - silent, instant, steady.
I do miss 55mm at f/2.8 but the 18-200 can go higher than 55mm.
BTW n0b0, the net cost of my 18-200 is even less than your quoted Tamron price, and I save even more by selling the 17-55.
Mar 14, 2009 at 06:54 AM
Previous versions of vontom's message #6833486 « Post your 18-200mm IS shots »
