canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or Tamron 18-270mm VC? Can anyone give me un bias views?
458268
Hi John, I've been researching this question for longer than is sane. It's easy to overwhelm yourself if you read every single (differing) opinion, which I have. I also considered the Sigma 18-250 but it's soft sample pics disappoint me. The comparison pictures on the following link made up my mind to go for the Canon over the Tamron http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_18-200_sigma18-250_tamrom18-250_18-270.htm The other things include the indecisive AF on Tamron, this would frustrate me but would cause my wife to give up using it. I am convinced with fast moving kids and finding my favourite shots through an opportunistic eye that a superzoom is the way for me. If you set out to photograph a certain thing and aren't distracted by serendipity then multiple lens' might work for you.
1837793
There is none, Tamron lenses is as follows.....The SP is for special performance, AF is for auto focus, DI makes this lens a full frame lens, VC is for vibration control and the USD is for ultra sonic drive auto focus. The a005C is for canon, a005N is nikon, and a005S is for sony....
1533865
Tamron pros: light, sharp, f 2,8 inexpensive cons: only for crop sensors, autofocus motor a little loud when searching for focus(has not bother me) Canon Pros; EF for full and crop sensor, sharp, Cons; F4, shorter zoom, more expensive, heavier. I would recommend reading the reviews at the digital picture. Note, the VC version of the Tamron is not as sharp as the non-VC It comes down to this, if you are going to stay with crop sensor, get the tamron
61536
Their lenses are fine. But you have to ask Canon or Tamron your question. You should only trust their answers. I would ask both of them. They will help you.
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
2102763
I use Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for general purpose (also at night). I love its sharpness. It is also suitable for portraits. For the professional portraits, look at prime lenses with f1.4 or f1.8.
1272575
I have both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 as well as the Tamron 28-300 that I shoot with the Nikon D200. I can't say if I prefer the 17-50 over 28-75 but I love both of them and find I use them both depending on what I'm shooting. If I could afford only 1 lens it would probably be the 28-75 for my type of shooting. If you;'e shooting large groups of people or need the wider angle then I'm sure 17-50 may serve you better.
1634587
I agree with the earlier response...18-135mm is probably best. While I have one myself, my constant companion is an 18-270mm Tamron zoom. Since I find myself in many different scenarios that my 'go-to' lens. But whatever lens you choose, get the BEST glass you can afford. You can go wrong there.
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
14699
The EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens and the 55-250mm IS lens are made by Canon, not the case for the Telephoto and wide-angle lenses.
1276205
The IQ of the Tamron lens is typical of super-zooms, that is, a compromise at all focal lengths. The Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85 is generally well-regarded and is probably sharper over much or all of its range. I would recommend adding the Tamron to your kit for its unbeatable versatility but keep the Nikkor for its better optics.
39312
Thank you for you interest in our bundle! In regards to your inquiry, the Tamron lens included with our package deal is the non-VC version.
1526810
I have the Canon, but if you happen to get a good copy of the Tamron, then it's probably a better value. That being said, copy to copy consistency is going to be much better on the Canon side. You're more likely to get a lens with autofocus issues with the Tamron.
1668187
I really like my 16-300 mm Tamron and would recommend it to someone looking to purchase something in that range. That being said, I have never used an 18-270, but, my guess is that you can't get as close or as far with that lens as what I get. But the difference really isn't that much. If it were me and looking to to move up, I'd move up to the Nikon 80 - 400 mm lens. It has what I think is a better glass, and more range. However, you can get a Tamron 150 - 600 mm for about half the price of the mentioned Nikon.
632571
I have a 40D and plan a Europe trip with the intention of taking one lens, with the same choice. Questions are: Image quality at either end of the range? Macro quality, build quality? The utility of an additional 50mm of the Tamron?Critical perhaps is stabilisation with Sigma. Can anyone advise?
2058091
I cannot honestly answer this question. I bought the lens for outdoors, shooting airplanes, ships, trains, wildlife and scenery in daylight - usually at ISO 200 or perhaps ISO 400.The image quality is simply outstanding - with impeccable colors, great sharpness and resolution, contrast, and no trace of CA. Focusing is fast and quiet (on my K-7).There is not way for me to compare with the Tamron...
90778
If you get a superzoom like the 18-200 get one with image stabilization. If you don't know what you want, that's probably the one to get, you'll have much more reach and an enormous range of focal lengths to play with. I'd also highly recommend the 50mm 1.8 Once you've got some more experience, you'll start to learn which focal lengths you use more often. If you find yourself mostly shooting from 18-50, you can ebay your superzoom and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I have it and it's superb for landscapes and indoor shots, it's on my camera most of the time. If you're always at the long and and wishing for more you can step up to a 70-300 or 55-250.