What is best "compromise" lens 17-200 range

frnofrno

I shoot with a 20D and I have bought a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4x and 2x sigma EX converters. I am going to buy a tamron 17-50 f2.8 to "complete" my lenses unless I get a bettter suggestion (feel free to comment). This leaves me the problem of not having a lens that I can take on a sailboat and snap a picture of a friend up close (17-20mm), then turn and shoot a zoomed picture of an eagle perched 150 yards away (200mm). I know this is greedy, or lazy, or both, but I want it all sometimes, without carryng and changing lenses.

I seek the advice of the collective wisdom of the DGRIN borg, with four comments. I know I am compromising and will not get the finest quality at all ranges. I am not worried about low light for this lens. Smaller is better. Inexpensive would be a plus, especially since this lens will go places I would not take an expensive lens and damage is more possible.

Anyone willing to take a stab at this one?

Tee Why

I'd say based on this good comparison test by Lightrules, I'd vote for the Tarmon 18-270 VC then Canon 18-200, and then Sigma 18-200 OS. If cost is an option also consider the Sigma 18-200OS and even cheaper 18-135 OS as well.

I think Cameta also sells the sigma for a lot less than others.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/superzoomtest

Optically I think you'll be disappointed when compared to the two zooms you are getting but I wouldn't want to change lenses in a small boat at sea either. Sea mist is not good for electronics.

Scott_Quier

Tamron makes an AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC

There's bound to be all sorts of compromises in this lens.

Edit: Tee_Why beat me to it...