Money to spend

[Arthurhh]

Well I had a reasonable budget then the wife's car lost a water pump, and the drive needs work (as in the 500m of gravel we drive out on each day)

So I have settled on a Tamron 18-270 with IS, and a Canon 70 200 with USM and IS.

Now that looks like a big overlap, but I want a walk about lens, and I want a birding/nature lens so I figure it is a passable mix.

Opinions!

[mesodan]

Very different lenses! The Canon would be awesome. The Tamron is more of a travel lens, or for people who are too lazy to swap lenses. One of the guys on my trip last week had one, quality expectedly isn't great.

I question though what kind of shots you will get that you can't with your existing lenses.

[peedee]

P.S. Do the water pump yourself and it should come in at around $100 unless she did not keep an eye on the temp guage and discovered it was overheating via alternate methods. Its simple and easy.

[rjd]

I honestly dont see the point.

If you want travel a 17-50/2.8 tamron and a 70-200f4L IS make a fantastic pair.

[mrfinster]

What Rob said, plus a 10-20 or similar, sell two of your bodies, and spend the money on a decent compact or mirrorless.

[Arthurhh]

The choice of the 18-270 is to get the IS I have been quite happy with the IQ of the current 18-200 so figure that is worth a try with the newer model.

The 70-200 is for fixed work in a hide. Looking at the IQ which will be significantly better than the Siggy 400 the f4 is also a plus.

I must change my Sig I only run two bodies at the moment the wife inherited the other. Just as she will inherit the 18-200.

Would love to have a TS lens but the price is high, love the examples being posted here at the moment.

[peedee]

That puts a slightly different spin on what your looking at doing.

I still think that the third party zooms can be quite compromised in terms of quality unless its the top of the range in the third party lenses. Even then, I prefer to have Canon if I can justify it.

I also feel that unless budget is NOT of prime concern, doubling up on focal range with zooms is counter productive. Maybe having a couple of primes which are covered by zooms is one thing ( much faster and better optics ) but having all sorts of different lenses which cover the same ranges is a different thing.

[peedee]

Well I had a reasonable budget then the wife's car lost a water pump, and the drive needs work (as in the 500m of gravel we drive out on each day)

So I have settled on a Tamron 18-270 with IS, and a Canon 70 200 with USM and IS.

Now that looks like a big overlap, but I want a walk about lens, and I want a birding/nature lens so I figure it is a passable mix.

Opinions!

You already have a Tamron 18-200 according to your signature - whats the real benefit of the extra 70mm and IS? You also have the 135-400 Sigma, which is going to be ok for birding and most other longer work.

Which 70-200 are you looking at? And birding asks for longer than 200mm, so your not likely to use the 70-200 unless its a 2.8 and you have a 2x teleconverter on it ( the mk2 lens with the mk3 teleconverter gives quite good quality )

If budget is of prime importance, why not consider selling some of the really truly overlapping glass, and start a bit more "fresh"?. Maybe sell one of the camera bodies unless you really need 3 too?

My 3 main lenses I use are my 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200. I shoot with a 5D3 mostly.

On a crop sensor camera, if budget were of concern, I would have an 18-200 or 18-135 if it turns out to be a better lens optically. Thats the wide to tele covered with no lens changes and IS on the full range. Then to get out longer, if budget was of serious consideration, I would look for a second hand Sigma 150-500 or 50-500. If budget was not quite so tight, lots swear by their 400 F5.6L lens. Thats massive reach on a crop sensor camera with good pixel density therefore giving good cropability. Remember that you can crop harder from a good lens than an average lens, and the 400 F5.6 will probably give better results than either of the Sigma options can once you start cropping away pixels.

I often wish for a good travel lens for full frame. There is not really one - the 28-300 is simply massive, heavy and still loaded with compromises. None of the third party lenses really make the grade in my opinion. Of course, the 24-105 is not a bad compromise, but could be both wider and longer.......