Just curious to get some thoughts from people here. As far as I can gather, these types of lenses are quite unpopular and I feel like not many people here may have bothered with such lenses. But I'll test the waters anyway. As a short back story, my wife bought a Canon 40D many years ago, about a decade I think, and I believe at the time it came with the Tamron 18-250mm lens. So we had and used it for a long time, for simple photography and it did the job well. Then somewhere along the line I more or less took possession of the camera, and for reasons I cant recall now, I felt the need to get the Canon 18-200mm lens instead. I think it was mostly just that I was of the impression the IQ was significantly better.

So I got that lens and have used it quite contently for every year since. In that time we bought a Canon 70D and I've continued to use this lens. For the record, I have a Sigma 10-22mm for all my land/seascape requirements, but for everything else I have used this Canon 18-200mm.

Then, after taking the Canon 18-200mm to Vanuatu and using it as per normal, as soon as I got home I took that lens off the camera, for the first time in about a decade (aside from when I use the wide angle) and I put the Tamron back on, and haven't taken it off since. A couple of reasons:

1. All of a sudden, supposedly, that extra 50mm focal length became "important."
2. The Canon lens is 18-200mm in name, but for a very long time I have found it very difficult to shoot anything at all at 200mm. I'd say I've found it impossible, to be honest, bar the test I will show below. My wife says the same thing... but at 200mm, the camera will just not focus and take a photo. Very frustrating. I don't understand why, but it doesn't do it. Alternatively, I put the Tamron on, go to 250mm and shoot without hesitation. As, I imagine, it should be.

Anyway, so I've been using the Tamron lens pretty happily, enjoying the extra 50mm but it's always been in the back of my head if I'm doing the right thing, or am I just wasting the money I spent on the Canon lens. Amusingly enough, to be completely candid, what brought it to a head was a competition result on this very forum.

Going back a few weeks, I'll admit it, I was really surprised by the end result in this comp:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...T-Intermediate

For this photo:

IMG_8536-1.jpg

On a weekly basis, I understand and feel like I can usually gather up a number of valid reasons as to why my entries fare how they do, and it all makes sense to me. I think this was the only time I was really quite baffled. In my mind I thought it was a pretty cool snap and would go well. So, as I do, I assessed it in the aftermath in order to understand why not only was it unsuccessful - but it was landslided. (A word? you ask. It is now).

The reasons I came up with were:

1. The photo is just crap. No two ways about it ; I hoped this wasn't the case as I quite liked it, but tastes differ. That could be it.
2. Not cropped enough ; it was a conscious decision for me to leave this crop as it was to take in the lake and it's surrounds as it was part of the story for me, but of course that story doesn't become part of the photo comp.
3. No motion blur ; as the theme was 'Movement' I wondered if the lack of actual blurred movement may have cost me.
4. Bokeh ; a funny ol' word and one I'm not ashamed to admit I was unfamiliar with before rejoining this forum earlier this year. I'd never heard of the term before until I saw it a few times here and googled it and found out that that background blur had a name. lol. But in reviewing my photo, I wondered if the bokeh/background was a bit "jittery" and off-putting.

And it was number four which made me wonder, because I had never once ever noticed off-putting bokeh in my photos taken with the Canon lens. I wondered if it might be a "thing" with the Tarmon lens over the Canon one.

So amidst extreme interference (all cute and hard to get too angry at) from my to children, I set up my tripod in the backyard, found a point of interest, and decided to test the two lenses head to head... purely on bokeh quality alone. I probably need to do more tests, but in all honesty I was just too busy this weekend to even get a moment to do any more than this... which was rushed itself.

Unfortunately, I'm not really comparing apples with apples... and I'll admit it's due to me being unaware of how to use my equipment. I admit I don't know how to shoot my Tamron lens at 200mm, other than by pure fluke. What's the secret to shooting at a specific focal length (that isn't the min or max the lens shoots)? I've always just gone off what suits what I'm trying to shoot. So anyway, one is shot at 250mm and one at 200mm (and I understand I should have adjusted settings accordingly too), but I was hoping the results would still be evident. To me, they're not. But I'd be really curious to hear any input on which lens folk here would be using in my situation.

For the record, and there is still a thread to come... I do want to enter the world of full frame cameras, but I have absolutely no idea how I'd afford it, so this is what I'm "stuck with" for now.

So here are the results. These are obviously both straight out of the camera, no editing at all, for the sake of the experiment:

Canon 18-200mm, @ 200mm, f/6.3, 1/125, ISO 100
IMG_9506.jpg

Tamron 18-250mm, @ 250mm, f/6.3, 1/125, ISO 100
IMG_9505.jpg