The Best All-In-One / Walkaround / Superzoom Lenses! 6 Lenses Compared (for Canon)

[@mazadams4951]

No lie, hearing you saying “chromatic aberration” is probably my new favorite thing of all time.

[@institite.des.etudes.nouvelles]

do you mean, you like chromatic aberration?

[@igorpelin6049]

@@institite.des.etudes.nouvelles he does

[@Chipmunkski]

one of the very few BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT REVIEWER in this WORLD. **well organized on important points, clear actual examples, and direct to the point inputs. ***keep up the good works sir!

[@christopherfrost]

Thanks!

[@johnleetv9565]

Dude, your channel is so under-rated! Out of all the camera + lens review videos and channels on KZbin, your videos are the most helpful and consistent. Thanks man!!

[@domingoabrego3350]

Love the idea you are putting stars to the lenses you review... It is so much easier to have in one screen the overall of the lens. Thanks.

[@TheAndersDanilet]

The Canon 18-135mm is my kit lens. I was considering upgrading, but my budget is kinda tight. Thanks to your review I will give the 18-135 a chance. Thanks, man!

[@potatotech9915]

I like his videos so much, they are so relaxing

[@worstuserever]

Chris, thank you for making these excellent reviews. I eschewed superzooms and their compromises for years, but recently found many occasions when I wished for a small all-in-one solution that wouldn't get in the way of other activities, while still using a DSLR for control and image quality. I studied lots of reviews but yours was the one that really settled it. I weigh my decisions more on negatives than positives (I think most people do the opposite) and was prepared to purchase nothing at all. I heeded all the warnings and still chose the Tamron 16-300mm for that extra wide end. I've watched your standalone review of this lens too, and your observations accurately reflect my own findings. You rated the lens highly despite those CA problems and I entirely agree. The CA and any distortion can be adequately corrected in post, sometimes with a little loss of IQ, and I get lots of keepers just by virtue of this lens' flexibility. I thought the rotation direction might take some getting used to but I haven't found myself going the wrong way when switching back and forth between lenses. Some people will find it a bit heavy but I never feel like leaving it behind, which was the whole point. Like you, my main gear is based on the 6D (love it in low light!), while my current "compact" kit is this Tamron with the tiny and lightweight 200D. Still adds up to about a kilo ha ha!

[@Bamsambam33]

I always love your reviews! I watched one of your reviews for the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM, I ended up buying it and I absolutely love it

[@jerodius]

Great video for putting these lenses in perspective with each other. Grabbed a Sigma 18-200 on eBay for $70 with a hood and 3 filters. Maybe things have changed in the past 8 years, but I still see more recent recommendations listing these lenses for beginners. 🤷

[@prestonransome5362]

Very articulate commentary and packed with substantive info. Very well done.

[@masterhenryjr]

This is the video I needed. As a result I’m getting 18-135mm for my video work for HS sports. Thank you sir! God bless!

[@tysao2044]

I'm leaning towards the sigma 18-300 as a good holiday lens. because most out door photos I took was around f11 building, landscape, group photos. It also give u basic macro features. Plus I got the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 for about $350 new thanks to your review. Keep up the good work.

[@konradc12]

I have the Canon 18-135mm STM and it works well on the EOS 700D. I bought my niece a EOS 1200D and Sigma 18-250mm, as she is only 16, and saves on changing the lens. The Sigma seems to work well and is smaller than my 18-135 STM. The picture quality of the STM is fine, probably better than the Sigma. I got the Sigma from Jessops for only £229 a couple of months ago. Good carry around lens.

[@tonyhughes1963]

Thanks Jim. Wouldn't consider taking the big lens. I do want something like a 16-300.

[@Wild_Legends]

I am extremely missing here Canon 28-300mm Lens f3.5-5.6 IS L USM

[@700nura]

Please do a review again now with Tamron 16-300mm, Tamron 18-270mm, Tamron 18-400mm, Sigma 18-300mm. This video needs to be there. No one else has made a review of this combo comparison. A fan of your work man.

[@JoeJacksonJr]

Excellent video Chris. I am still using the Sigma 18-250mm EX lens, but for a travel zoom lens I am recommending the Sigma 18-200mm C. Unless they already got the Canon 18-135, which in that case I tell them to just keep using that lens since they already own it.

[@hirschkuh1982]

I tested the Sigma 18-200mm C against the Sigma 18-250mm and the 18-250mm was noticeable sharper and better all in all.

[@Shadow81989]

That's interesting, as all the reviews that I've seen conclusively put the 18-200 way ahead of both the 18-250 and the 18-300. I only have the 18-200 though, so I can't compare it myself. What I definitely like about it, is that it's the same size and weight as a normal 18-55mm kit lens - just really handy when travelling with light weight - and still offers almost 4x the range.

[@maenkarchipay1722]

I used 18-135 as begginer with 70D in 2016 and its a champ🥰🥰🥰.

[@RFGfotografie]

BTW you forget one thing at the 18-135. When you buy a certain extra, not sure how it's called, you can zoom in with video without movement. Very weird yet handy tool.

[@janclewett]

I have the Tamron 16-300mm lens and would highly recommend it to anyone. I have been using it since it was released and I am very happy with it. All super zoom lenses with such a large range are a compromise and will never replace prime lenses or Canon L series lenses of which I also own. What I like about this lens is that it covers such a range of possibilities from wide angle, macro to zoom. Find it's sweet spots, and there are many. There will be chromatic aberration in all lenses. Fully extended it won't be at it's best but you still have a 300mm lens on your camera of good quality. If you are into birding, you need a much longer reach and need to spend some serious $$ to get the quality needed. You can't compare the Canon 18-135mm kit lens with this lens as the zoom range is so limited and you will quickly want another zoom. I have the Canon 18-135mm lens and never use it now I have the Tamron. Remember every time you change a lens, you let some dust particles into your sensor. A dirty sensor produces spots on your images. If you are on the move, a superzoom such as the Tamron, eliminates that possibility. It is a well constructed light lens that produces images of very good quality. Learning to use manual settings on your camera, with one spot focussing, will improve the results of any lens. When using this lens fully extended at 300mm, you will need a very fast shutter speed to compensate for body movement which of course will produce blurred images. To see the quality images that this awesome lens can produce, go to Flickr and search for images using this lens. Alternatively you may look at my Flickr photostream for examples of images using this lens www.flickr.com/photos/boffins/ Among my photos you will see I use the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L lens which is an awesome lens, but cost, weight and focal length, mean I use this lens for a specific purpose - not a walkabout. I have used the Sigma 18-250mm and it does not measure up to the Tamron 16-300mm. When buying lenses, ask people who own them and use them often to give you feedback on their performance. They have a better knowledge and understanding of their capabilities. You get what you pay for and learning to get the best from the combination of your camera and lens is what being a good photographer is all about. You can not evaluate the quality of images from a computer screen or video, as it is not the same resolution. You need to look at full resolution images out of the camera, not compressed images. The Tamron 16-300mm is a better all around choice when looking at all lenses in this review because of versatility. A great starting point and build from it with more expensive Canon L series lenses - but be prepared to pay for that quality.

[@davidmood5161]

Hi +Jan Clewett, many thanks for your detailed comment! I watched your images on Flickr taken with the Tamron, and I can't believe the quality you managed to get out of that lens. I already gave up the idea of purchasing a superzoom lens due to many reviewers pointing out their poor image qualities, but seeing your pictures makes me re-consider it. I only have a Canon 700D though, do you think the quality would be a lot worse on that compared to your cameras? Also, how much processing did you have to apply generally to the images in Photoshop, to get them to look as they do? Many thanks, David

[@davidmood5161]

Hello Jan, sorry for the late reply. Many thanks for your answer! I need to try out the Tamron somewhere. Right now I have the 18-55mm IS STM kit lens, the 50mm 1.8 STM, and just last week I bought the Sigma 30mm 1.4 ART, which of course costs as much as the 700D itself, haha. The 50mm 1.8 is capable of delivering incredible pics, especially considering how cheap it is, but I've found that 50mm is already a too narrow angle on an APS-C camera for many everyday situations - so I wanted to have a prime with a more versatile focal length. I'm really enjoying the 30mm Sigma so far, altough one needs to be really careful with focusing at those wide apertures the Sigma offers. You wrote that one should use one spot focusing. I was quite unhappy with the default automatic focus setup, so I switched to the middle focus point only (which is supposed to be the most sensitive), and now I'm trying to get used to it. That of course means focusing and then recomposing most of the time, while keeping focus. Is that how you work, and what you meant with one spot focusing? But to be honest, one of the reasons why I bought the Sigma is because I really enjoy manual focusing, but that is no fun on either of the other two lenses I own. On the Sigma manual focusing works great, but of course there is not always time for that. Many thanks, David

[@janclewett]

Hi David. Yes one spot focus is just as you are doing. However you can vary the spot on your camera, at least I can on mine. The middle focus point is the most sensitive to lower light I believe. And yes you focus on the point, then recompose your picture. This will give you a much more accurate focus than using the default automatic setting on the camera. It is really only possible to use manual focus when using a tripod. When using a tripod in manual focus mode, remember to turn off image stabilisation too. Does you camera have a touch screen? On my camera I can shoot with the one spot focus in live view by touching the area I want in focus on the touch screen and it will then shoot and capture the image. My camera takes great shots that way so I rarely use manual focus. With the combination of lenses, you are missing the zoom. Nothing will perform like your prime lenses David and you can't compare a zoom to the quality of a prime. However once on your camera, you are set up for that focal length which limits what you can do. The Canon zoom lens I love to use is the 70-200mm f2.8 II. However it is another huge expense and is a very heavy lens. I don't know how your finances are placed, but it is possibly one of the finest adaptable zooms made by Canon. Again I must say, that if I can only take ones lens with me to cover everything, I still take my Tamron as it is frustrating not having the right lens to fit all situations and carrying the Canon 70-200mm everywhere is large, heavy and tiring.

[@davidmood5161]

Hi Jan, I'm terribly sorry, I completely forgot to reply here. Yes you are very right, what I am missing is a telephoto lens. I cannot afford the Tamron right now (had too many other expenses...sigh), so I'm thinking about the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM. That can be had for around 170 euros from amazon here, and Canon offer 25 euro cashback this summer. It has amazing reviews on amazon, one of the most positively reviewed lenses I have come across. I might sell my 50mm 1.8 though, since it became a little bit redundant after I purchased the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Altough it is nice for head and shoulder portrait shots, since you don't have to move as close to your subject as with the 30mm. I am sure the 70-200mm is an amazing lens, but that is really out of my reach right now. All of the photos you took with that look amazing - incredible sharpness and colours. I have really dwelved into Lightroom in the last couple of weeks, and by now I can say that I'm getting familar with it. But there is one thing I don't understand: when I export my pictures, the colours in the final exports look different than what I see in Lightroom. That's very irritating, because I cannot know how the result will look like. At first I thought it's because of the conversion to JPG, but when I export as TIFF, the colours still look different (same as JPG). Do you have any idea what the reason for that could be? Many thanks, David

[@janclewett]

Hi David. In regard to exporting from Lightroom I haven't had that problem. Could you clarify for me. Are you saying that when you print the photos through a printer the colours don't come out the same? I would need a little more information to try to figure out what is happening. Usually when I export from LR my photos are better than what I see on my computer screen in LR. Cheers, Jan

[@Ss0oUuLl]

I can't believe I got 18-135 as a kit lens because it kicks ass, it's really universal and sharp wide open. When I close the aperture halfway it goes so crisp I rarely use sharpening in camera raw. While tamrons are known for their green-purple fringing, I kinda go back to my 80-300 a lot as well. Closing the aperture is the least intuitive decision in astrophotography but stacking kinda helps.

[@frankyan_]

Would you consider revisiting this topic for mirrorless cameras? For example, I’m curious how 18-135mm lenses compare to a Sony RX100 VII and how the Tamron 18-300mm compares to an RX10 IV.

[@ryanlindo7489]

Hey you made an awesome review. Congratulations! This is the first time that I got interested with a lens review. Keep it up! I just have one question for you. I have a Sigma 18-200 OS HSM lens and it has UV filter infront of it. Do you think I shoild get rid of it? Does it have an effect with the quality, sharpness and brightness of my images?

[@xAnicsi]

I've been browsing the web for ages looking at all kinds of reviews to make up my mind, thankfully I stumbled across your channel. Your videos are the most helpful! I especially like that you point out that it always depends on what your needs are, there is no answer to 'what is the best lens?' if the needs aren't clarified. I am looking for an affordable allrounder lens for travel photography and video work, so after your review I will go for the Canon EF-S 18-135mm STM. Thanks! :)

[@Al.j.Vasquez]

4:37 something tells me that this squirrel doesn't keep any food for later.

[@hunsakermedia]

Never thought I'd go for a "super zoom" option due to their downsides but having done a few event coverage jobs, I can confidently say no piece of gear is off the table that can help cover my needs. Switching out lenses throughout made me miss out on so many moments.

[@MrRFasters]

Yup. The sharpest phot is the one you could actually take .... I do own several hot sharp lenses, but the new Tamron 18-400 never leaves my body again. It s the one always on the body when I want to grab my lens. Ans indeed - at events it s priceless. It has a few downsides: more difficult to shoot sharp (you actually need to "work this lens" but it can be done), the IS or VC or OS os far from Canon level and it needs an awful lot of light for it s AF to work. I shoot it from an EOS 77D. Nonetheless: Im still hanging onto it and does the job for any web, private, magazine or "normal" shot. When going for award winning sharpness, this would not be my go to lens.

[@wheels8080]

Looking for a super zoom lens and looking at your reviews was tossing up between the Sigma and the Tamron. As a quadriplegic it's annoying having 18 55 and the 55-250 and didn't know the lenses were available in your reviews thanks for that. As I would be using it more in the zoom range I think the Sigma is a bit better if I remember correctly. I'm just about to buy the 750 D to replace my 500 D as I need to use the control setup that I have to take photos using the old Canon T 70 T3 adapter with a 3.5 plug need to connected to an air shutter release blower brush which are used to bite on to take photos which I have used on the previous T 70 camera many years ago. I still need to stick to the 55-250 mm lens for some concert photos but will use the super zoom lenses during the day trips wherever I go everyday use. I was going to get a 400 mm lens but they are too heavy for me to hold anyway with the faster camera 750 D and more frames per second will do me for another five years. Thanks for your reviews regards Mark Sydney Australia

[@tanadetmaitrichit873]

Thanks Christopher Frost Photography. Now, I can decide to buy Canon 55-250 STM lens for my second options.

[@FordGranada75]

Oh, nice! A Konica FS-1 on the bookshelf. I have one in my collection too - happened to be my second SLR after I bought a Konica (Cosina ...) TC-X back in 1985 alltogether with a superszoom of that time: a 35-200mm. :)

[@krollpeter]

I jumped for the Sigma. The IS is not as good as the Tamron's. The Tamron's handling seems more fun. The Tamron has a thin rubber seal around the bajonett. The Tamron is a lot cheaper. BUT: The Sigma produces quality pics! Through the entire range! Adjust it above 100 mm, and the Tamron's lack of sharpness is plain to see. It is made in China, and the Sigma is still made In Japan. Thank you, Christopher, for your excellent advice! You were spot on with your user-friendly analysis.

[@ekpunjabi38]

Always pleasure to watch your videos. Thanks a lot !

[@PMattKatz]

Thanks for this review, mate. I already own the Canon 18-135mm which I absolutely love, but I'm looking for a little more range without spending a lot of money, so I think I'm going to go for the Sigma 18-200mm. I reckon there's a new version of that lens, looking forward to use that little one!

[@michaeldidomenico7]

I own the older Canon 18-135 and I have to agree with you. it is an excellent lens, and also very sharp. As good as the newer STM version.

[@7bungo]

Great shots of Llandaff my home village.

[@Magunto]

Interesting comparison. Could you do an update on this for 2017/18, including the new Tamron 18-400 zoom lens and Canon 18-135 USM? Also, could you do a similar comparision of wide angle zooms for Canon (Sigma, Tamron, Canon). Thanks and all the best!

[@christopherfrost]

The USM version of the Canon 18-135 is virutally the same, to be honest, except far more expensive

[@gavinphillips3973]

The picture quality of the Tamron 16-300mm improves considerably (as most lenses will) if you stop down to around F8. It'll never give you the amazingly sharp results of a prime or shorter zoom but it will still perform well in average conditions. I've used this lens since my older 18-270mm dropped several feet onto a concrete slab and its a considerable upgrade to be certain. The Sony version does not feature the in-lens stabilisation as ours is in-body instead.

[@janclewett]

+Gavin Phillips (balacau) I agree wholeheartedly with you. The Tamron 16-300mm is a ripper zoom.I have many Canon L series lenses that I really love. However they are specialist lenses and limited to what you can do with them. Whenever I need to choose one lens, my choice is the Tamron 16-300mm because it is so adaptable. If you play with it's sweet spots predominantly, you get great images and never miss a shot because you don't have the right lens on your camera.

[@slabbyrider8665]

Thank you for throwing a spanner in the works

[@DalsPhotography]

Having the 18-135- the tamron 28-300 and canon 100-400, I stay finally with my canon 100-400 LOL The best till now. onn my c. 7d mark ii, I found though that the tamron can take beautiful close ups! Thanks for a nice review!!!

[@MichaelRusso]

Nice series of reviews. I have been enjoying them. Thanks!

[@andrewparker318]

As someone who owns a canon M50, and is both interested in film making and photography, would you recommend getting the Canon 18-135mm, or the Canon 18-150?

[@ShahanurSharif]

I am also looking for an answer of this question.

[@andrewparker318]

@@ShahanurSharif I ultimately went with the 135 mm. In terms of film making this is probably a better lens, but its not as convenient as the 150 since its a lot heavier and requires an adapter.

[@Odd_Taxi_epi04]

Hello Cris, I love your channel and the consistency of your reviews. Any chance of reviewing high-end bridge cameras like Panasonic FZ1000 and Sony RX10 III/IV? Especially comparing their lenses to those superzooms and to what you can put together in an APS-C ILC system for similar price and weight. I've yet to see a rigorous comparison in those lines.

[@periurban]

Great roundup. I wonder if the magic of wide angle is overstated. I enjoyed using a Tamron 10-17mm lens a while back, but whilst it was a lot of fun it did force me to take a certain kind of picture. Since popping the Canon 55-250mm on my Canon 600D I've barely taken it off! I suppose it's just how we each see the world but I think I have discovered that I see the world starting at 55mm. I also worry that the superzooms do compromise image quality too much. I think for the price of one of these lenses you could get a very good compact camera with a much higher zoom ratio and get a very similar image quality. (Now, there's a comparison test I'd love to see!)

[@s87343jim]

Hmmm...not really. The sensor on those superzoom cameras is really tiny and you still have the problem with superzoom lenses. You will realise these cameras often fall apart in low light or high contrast condition and the effect of diffraction will occur a lot sooner compared to DSLRs. I mean if it is only for Facebook or mobile phone then you should be fine, but otherwise...hmmmm

[@periurban]

Jim Huang You are correct, I think.

[@cameroni7798]

Yes, I love that lens, too! It allows for a great deal of creativity - especially outdoors in daylight.

[@henryIRL]

Fantastic video. Have you suggestions for all in one lenses for full frame Canons? I’m in need of an all around lens for my full frame Canon EOS R6. Have you ever reviewed or looked into the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD?

[@bobbeck1869]

You have to do an updated video. I would love to see where the new Canon 18-135 Nano USM fits in here...

[@christopherfrost]

It's almost no different from the STM lens at all, I'm afraid; take a look at my review.

[@bobbeck1869]

@@christopherfrost Yup. I saw the good enough. I assume since you gave the STM version 16 stars that it is still better than the other super zooms. Thanks and love your videos

[@joshuelabelardo6736]

Your video is a very big help sir!

[@lmenzol]

Godamn, this channel is relaxing

[@paulmoadibe9321]

Hi Christopher, thanks for the review. I was very interested by the 16-300mm Tamron (I saw the full review) but since the sharpness is so poor... don't know what to do. I already have the Canon 55-250 and 18-135mm but wanted a more versatile lens with a kick... I'll continue to think about it...

[@janclewett]

+Paul Moadibe I have the Tamron 16-300mm and it is an awesome lens. You are welcome to check out my Flickr photostream as I use the lens predominantly as a walk around lens. I also use the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L, very expensive but awesome lens. However it is too heavy, not wide angle and not macro to consider using as a walkabout. www.flickr.com/photos/boffins/ No zoom lens is going to give the quality of a prime lens or a zoom of limited focal length. There is always a compromise. However if you are going to be walking around outdoors or hiking, what you need is an adaptable lens, that is light and easy to carry. This lens fits that purpose wonderfully.

[@martinhommel9967]

Thanks for the review. I was wondering how many stars would you award the Tamron 18 - 400?

[@GDIALPHA]

I enjoy using the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS HSM as a walkaround lens if i can only carrry one lens since at 50mm you can shoot street and portraits however on the other hand at 500mm you can shoot wild life

[@bing0bongo]

Can you do an update to this video? It’s been several years, I’m sure there are new lenses! :)

[@MrRFasters]

Look at the Tamron 18-400. It has an amazing field usage and a serious decent image and built quality. Since I've bought it it never left my body again. The top spec lenses do populate my second body but the fun of these lenses are the best, sharpest, most valuable pics are the ones you took when the other gal or guy was switching lenses ... IS and AF not the best: it takes some learning to shoot it sharp every time.

[@CashelOConnolly]

The Canon 18-135 USM IS is a brilliant lens you really need a tripod because it’s heavy mind you I’ve attached a motorised zoom in and out onto it

[@markialright8302]

well good day christopher frost? are you related to christopher winter?

[@christopherfrost]

We have the same first name, not the same last name.

[@markialright8302]

+Christopher Frost Photography thanks! but the last name is also related. am waiting for your next review. shukran. :)

[@christopherfrost]

Haha I see

[@MrAlvarochahin]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and for this very thorough review, great job!

[@supunbatagoda8061]

Great video. Just have quick question though, What about Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens?

[@mikester1290]

probably not classed as a super zoom, i dont know what the qualifiers are.

[@shashimoghe3920]

very very rich and valuable information. you deserve a lot of praise sir. goodwishes

[@Johnnyd898]

No doubt the canon 18-135 is the best among listed, still have to purchase it somehow this days

[@ArvindNegidehradun]

HI christopher, I really like this and I hope you will keep adding new ones. Here, I want your suggestion on 28-300 mm Tamron len. How you see this lens as value for money and where you put this, among these lens (please mention about how you rate this one). Thanks in advance.

[@christopherfrost]

Haven't tried it, I'm afraid!

[@bbs500100]

Hey, Chris, have you thought taking a look at Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Macro OS? It's also very popular and would be nice to see how will come out from your test

[@davidj4568]

Recent test byTony Northrup said the Tamron 16-300 was as good as the Canon. I have seen the results on the 16-300mm and its quite good. I have owned the 18-270 mm it was very sharp.

[@edgarhaner1949]

Would love to see if there is an update, looking at RF or EF-M lenses

[@khmjahid5725]

Thank you. Clears my all confusions and dilemmas. 👆

[@olegasphoto]

canon 18-135 stm is great! just bought it today.

[@whitedragon1337]

+Olegasphoto How much did you pay? The video lists the price at $320 but Amazon is selling for $550.

[@olegasphoto]

in Ukraine u can buy it new for 250$

[@joedavies1524]

Beautifully presented as always but the title is a bit misleading as its Canon only.

[@YourTechGuide.]

excellent review again even tho, I hate superzoom lens, it was nicely presented

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Thumbs up for another excellent review!

[@mlkjml]

however on the canon 18-135mm, I always get dust on the inside of the glass as it is not weather sealed, great lens other than that

[@arnabsarkar8829]

Great review.. Could you please do a same kind of comparison for entry level telephoto zoom lenses like 55-250 IS STM etc. Thanks

[@christopherfrost]

+Arnab Sarkar I am looking into a video on telephoto zoom lenses for APS-C. I do generally recommend the 55-250 STM though

[@arnabsarkar8829]

Thanks 😄

[@maxfactor4209]

+Christopher Frost Photography between the Canon 55-250 stm and tamron 70-300 vc. which one do U suggest? tnx

[@christopherfrost]

The Canon

[@manuelpenaredondo2847]

thank you always for a good review .. you deserved more subscribers..

[@YoungTheFish]

I'm not sure if it's my speaker... But I found your vocal a bit heavy on the low end. Maybe you can cut the lower frequency a a bit? Great video though!

[@samk.9972]

Excellent review!

[@mmadmic]

I'm a prime and "L" lenses with Canon and Zuiko Pro/Panaleica for MFT. A few times ago, my wife was thinking my camera bag is too heavy to travel, she bought me a "super zoom" Tamron 18-270 for my birthday. At first I was relatively happy with the versatility of this lens but, when I checked the first pictures, I was quite disappointed, even I am not a pixel analyzer fanatic, the results were so poor, contrast and sharpness so bad, and even the lens is already quite slow, results start to be acceptable around f11. It isn't because of Tamron, I have the 17-50 2.8 and very happy with this lens, but this "super zoom" is just a pity, why buy a good camera to have pictures worst than with a smartphone ? But I think it's "super zoom" in general that are crappy, I had the Zuiko 14-150 kit with my first OMD and the 18-180 with my first DSLR and both are bad, not so bad as the Tamron but bad even compared to standard "normal range" zoom such as the ultra-cheap 40-150 from Zuiko 4-5.6 or even the venerable Canon 35-105 3.5-4.5 from 1987. For me, a zoom with more than 4x focal range is a bad choice.

[@conjugate121]

I only have to watch your videos when i plan to buy canon lenses. Great job on all the videos....

[@proyectozonda]

Great vid Chris 👍👍

[@Toxotesmicrolepis]

Hi Christopher, love the reviews. I'm looking to get a zoom lens in the 20-80+mm range, would you recommend the Canon 18-135mm STM over the 15-85mm, or the older 17-85mm? I have a couple of good telephoto lenses, so the larger zoom range wouldn't be massively useful, but the STM focussing looks great. Thanks for any advice you have for me! Camera is a 7D.

[@christopherfrost]

+Toxotesmicrolepis I don't recommend the 17-85. As for the 15-85 vs 18-135, they're both good, so it just depends whether you want that much wider angle of 15mm (that's probably what I would go for)

[@tonyhughes1963]

Great review mate . I'm still trying to choose that all in one holiday lens. I fancied the Tamron16-300 but I have the Tamron150-600 and its very soft past 500. Do you have any suggestions at a the more expensive end of the market please?

[@s87343jim]

I think unless you are planning to bring your 150-600mm to your holiday then 16-300 is a great option. If you do want to bring that big Tammy to the trip then 18-135mm isnt a bad option.

[@christopherfrost]

+Anthony Hughes For a holiday lens I'd just go for the Canon 15-85, normally

[@tonyhughes1963]

Many thanks!

[@dovidell]

Now that the Tamron 18-400 f 3.5 - 6.3 is on the market , maybe you'd like to do the honours !!!

[@patriotmjb]

You know what lens I was hoping to see? Tamron 18-400

[@JohnnyMK78]

Hi Chris, nice review. What’s your take on the quality (image sharpness) of the Canon EF-M 18-150mm and EF-M 55-200mm lenses compared to the ones you reviewed in your video? I have an Canon M6. Thanks!

[@christopherfrost]

Take a look at my reviews of those lenses :-) they're not amazingly sharp by any means

[@adrinathegreat3095]

Buy the electronic adapter to use the efs lenses, and get the 55-250efs lens, used prices are pretty good and the image quality is very good. The specific lenese for the M cameras are expensive

[@pepperbean243]

you should do a full frame superzoom comparison. Maybe the 28-300mm f2.8 IS USM L or the 35-350mm f2.8 USM L

[@christopherfrost]

Hmm, there aren't enough of them out there, really

[@pepperbean243]

Christopher Frost Photography 50-500mm lenses?

[@TroyQwert]

Choice is the best obstacle. 😊

[@wildbill9919]

I'm thinking of getting a superzoom to replace my Nikon 18-135mm. That lens has great image quality, but I'd rather have the extra reach of the Nikon 18-200 or Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3.

[@enisykin1299]

you did a good job mr.!

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

I wish I had the Sigma instead of the Canon 18-200mm, the Canon is just not sharp enough and definitely has problems with color fringing. Additionally, it is a terrible lens for manual focusing. That said, I got an incredible bargain on the Canon (it came bundled with my 60D), and despite its issues has produced some startlingly nice photos for me. It was a great lens to learn on, and I don't regret buying it. Now as a more experienced photographer I am pickier about image quality, and am eager to switch to better lenses once I can afford them.

[@victorlim5077]

Maybe it's time to make a 2023 version of this comparison, Chris. Things have changed a lot.

[@pieroxy1]

Great video ! Would you add the Tamrom 18-400 to it so that we can compare it to the others ?

[@christopherfrost]

Nah. Just look at the review ;-)

[@k.m7972]

is the sigma 18-200mm and 18-250mm the same from their sharpness etc.?

[@rnchak7003]

Keno

[@d53101]

I’ve used both of these lenses and found both very sharp. I like the 18 to 250 more because of the extra focal length and image stabilizer. Interestingly the 18 to 200 purchased in 2005 cost me $549 CAD and the 18 to 250 cost me $399 CAD in 2013. The original 18 to 200 in 2005 didn’t have image stabilizer.

[@johanmollevik2276]

Have you considered making a similar video for full frame? Some googling have revealed the existance of full frame superzooms in the 28-300 range from canon, tamron and sigma but I have not found many good youtube reviews of them.

[@christopherfrost]

I need to review more before I could do that really

[@Taz_Olson]

I'd kind of like to see how the Canon 28-300mm L lens kicks the crap out of all of these, it is pretty costly though.

[@Taz_Olson]

There are 800mm lenses out there for like 300 bucks too

[@Taz_Olson]

And we're watching a video about all in one lenses, they are all crap but sometimes there are things that matter other than just sharpness and grabbing an 800mm lens for 300 bucks rather than 5k+ would certainly be one of those times. It's not too bad of a lens either

[@joseCalderon1976]

Great review video! I need one of these lenses, but first I'm going to buy a macro lens.

[@edwardchao2230]

Hey Chris can you please do a review on the Canon 24-70 F4 IS? Great review btw

[@ajsimonazzi3390]

Very good lens. I’ve been using it for 7 years now.

[@Kouts182]

Hello Christopher, I really like and trust your reviews. Good work mate! I use 2 Superzoom lenses when travelling. Sigma 18-300 paired with Canon 7d ii and M.Zuiko 14-150 paired with my Em10-ii. I'm interested in buying Tamron 18-400mm in order to replace my Sigma 18-300. Could you please make a comparison test? Thanks in advance

[@christopherfrost]

I will test the Tamron 18-400 one day, hopefully

[@Justerlone]

Hi Christopher, my compliments for your great channel. I'm watching a lot of your videos and I enjoy them so much. I'd like to ask you a question. I have a canon 600d and I just bought the 50mm f/1.8 that is great. By the way I need a wide angle lens for landscapes. I have a Canon 18-55 IS II (the kit lens) but I recognize that it's not the best. What do you suggest for me? I'd like to have an all-in-one lens because I need it to travel and I was thinking about the Canon 18-135 IS STM. Is it way better than my 18-55 IS II? Is it worth buying it? Or is it better to buy another kind of lens, for example an ultra wide angle or telephoto? Thank you.

[@christopherfrost]

If you like wide angles then the Canon 15-85 is a great choice :-) the 10-18mm lens is also an nice option

[@Justerlone]

I couldn't decide between the 18-135 and the 10-18. But I think I'll go with the 10-18. I will buy a good telephoto later for the zoom. Thank you very much for your answer. :-)

[@Fast351]

Should also take a look at the Tokina 11-16. I don't know what you're using it for, but if you're planning on starscapes, the f/2.8 is really useful for extra light input. They also have an 11-20 now also with a f/2.8 aperture that I haven't used. They're built like tanks. And they won't break the bank.

[@Justerlone]

Fast351 I've heard that they are great lenses but at the moment I've found the IS on the Canon 10 18mm very useful also for the video. But the Tokina is maybe a lens that I'll consider in the future. Thank you very much for the answer.

[@DaveSincere]

very descriptive and detailed.

[@aryayogarudhita3953]

great review! my friend offers her Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for under AUD190. is it also a recommended walkaround lens?

[@christopherfrost]

Hmm, I'd prefer to save up for a fast standard zoom lens instead

[@aaronzheng519]

Chris, could you make another video like this but with more recent released lens? I'm curious if any of these will still make on the list

[@christopherfrost]

There are not that many more recently released lenses TBH

[@parzigaming2035]

So I guess you will do a video about APS-C telephoto zooms also.You replied me in an earlier video that you are planning to do so

[@christopherfrost]

+Partha Dey I am, it won't be long now :-)

[@parzigaming2035]

you are awesome ;-)

[@lairtongomes1849]

great review! congratulations!

[@guidocarello]

I'm courious how the new sigma 18 400mm would do against all of these lenses. Are you planing on testing it?