Posts: 5,222
Threads: 246
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Decided on a Canon EOS-80D. Prefer Canon to Nikon (went through the whole gambit of comparison back when I purchased a Canon A-1 in 1979 -- which I still own, and with the EOS-10D). Time to retire the EOS-10D after 15 years of service. Still works although sometimes it has autofocus issues (doesn't respond initially to multiple button activations). Only thing replaced has been the batteries. It has been a workhorse and has a 28-135mm lens currently (not compatible with the 80D)...
Want it to be a single lens for everything. Mostly travel photography, some family gatherings, occasional wedding (family/friends), etc. General purpose. Don't want to switch lenses. The 18-135 is relatively new and the 18-200 is getting long-in-the-tooth. Or do you recommend another lens?
Posts: 7,576
Threads: 123
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
I would go with the Tamron 16-300mm, 18-400mm or Sigma 18-300mm over the Canon 18-200mm. Canon's 18-135mm is pretty good if 135mm is long enough for you.
Tamron 16-300mm has the advantage of being wider, which is helpful for Canon 1.6x crop factor, but the Sigma 18-300mm is sharper at 300mm. 18-400mm is still relatively new, but I assume it would be sharper at 300mm since these all-in-one lenses tend to be soft at the long end.
Posts: 25,197
Threads: 9,431
Joined: May 2025
The lenses Gareth listed are all good choices. If you are used to the Canon direction of zoom, you will want to go with the Sigma 18-300. If zoom direction is not a big deal, the the 16-300 Tamron is what I currently use. It is very practical for travel since the wide end is 16 and not 18mm.
Currently on sale due to rebate 18-300 Sigma for $399
https://www.adorama.com/sg18300eosm.html
Posts: 13,793
Threads: 1,150
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
0
I don't have personal experience with the Tamron or Sigma superzooms, but as for Canon, definitely the 18-135 over the 18-200. The 18-135 is a pretty good lens. And although we're talking about two different lenses (when you want only one), the 55-250 STM is also a very good lens.
However, just so you know, your 28-135 is compatible with the 80D.
Posts: 25,197
Threads: 9,431
Joined: May 2025
If I recall, the Canon 18-200 is pretty bulky compared to the other offerings.
Posts: 50,838
Threads: 670
Joined: Mar 2024
Tough call. The 18-200 isn't mich longer than the 18-135 and is 3 ounces heavier
The USM in the 18-135 is supposed to be pretty darned quiet though so if you shoot some video and really hate the AF grunt, grunt, grunt with the built in mike you're gonna like how quiet the USM is.
How often did you shoot at 135mm with the ff lens ?
If a lot then you might want the 18-200
If you mostly shot at 28mm then the only time you'll miss the 200mm is wanting to check out the babe in the skimpy bikini on the other end of the beach. :-)
Edit: These are kit lens choices with a package deal/discount ?
Otherwise I have a Tamron 18-270 I was really happy with for a walk-around lens.
These days I tend to walk around with a Nikon APS-C 10-24 because too often 18mm just isn't enough. Far too oftenn I'm at the 18mm stop on the Tamron . At least for architecture shots (in town/indoors).
Posts: 27,160
Threads: 2,805
Joined: May 2025
I'd go with the 16-300 that Garath mentioned. Tamron makes some good glass, better construction than some of the Nikon & Canon lenses.
Posts: 18,585
Threads: 3,277
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
which is helpful for Canon 1.6x crop factor
Keep this in mind, as the 16-300 will translate to about 28-500. I like the 500mm equivalent but make sure the 28(ish) is wide enough for your needs.
Posts: 7,749
Threads: 397
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
I also have the Tamron 16-300 and it's a nice general-purpose lens. The 25.6mm (equiv) of the 16mm at the wide end makes it easier to get group shots than the 28.8mm (equiv) of the 18mm.
