Looking for an affordable zoom for all around use and for travel (want to carry one lens). Also interested in the Tamron 18-270. Thank you for any advice. My 70-300 kit lens died some time ago and I need something I can use generally. I have other high quality lenses for more specific purposes, so this is for when I head out for travel. Fyi, I use a Canon 7D MII and my daughter has my old Rebel T2i (so she would inherit this when I upgrade at some point)
I've been using Tamron 16-300 for over a year now, and I rarely take if off the camera now. The majority of the shots taken here are done with the Tamron (unless I want a very shallow DOF and use my 35mm) or use the smaller camera while running errands.
I can't go into very specific technical details, as I don't know about them. But I am overall very happy with the lens and didn't have any problems.
Here is the one I mean: TAMRON 16-300 - I have the Nikon-compatible version of that.
If you have any specific questions, please ask - otherwise I can just only say "I like it" :)
Oh, and also wanted to mention - it did simplify my travel a lot, as I used to use the kit lens 16-55 and the zoom that went from 55 to 200, both Nikkor lenses.
The camera stays cleaner since I don't have to switch lenses everywhere once I want a zoomed perspective, and I don't end up missing a shot in the mid-switch, which saves a lot of frustration compared to before. Also benefited my co-travelers, as they don't hear me all the time - "Wait guys, I need to switch lenses!" All the travel on this project is done with the Tamron (London was the last trip, this april, Russia and Greece last summer - you can find the pictures in the project if you want to have a look).
Hi Daryl. I have a canon 7d and use the sigma 18-250mm lens that you mention. I used it on my previous camera (1000d) for about a year until I upgraded to canon 7d about 2 and half years ago so have been using the lens now for over 3 years. It is my everyday lens / walkabout lens and continue to be very pleased with it and have no plans to replace it. I would recommend it to others. Most of the photos I have posted on my 365 project where I have used my 7d where taken with that lens. I did have a tamron but for me I found the sigma lens gave me the results I wanted in terms of image quality. The only thing I find is that the 7d is heavy as are (most) zoom lenses and I can tire from carrying it around!
@vera365 I just started looking atvthat one now! It looks like the filter is larger. Is storage an issue? I'm goung to use an ONA bag insert to a purse or backpack to lighten the load
Your advice is very helpful and I'll head iver to your shots. I'm going to France and do not want the hastle of changing lenses while in Paris! In South of france, I can have fun with my 35mm. Thanks agaim!
@bluerose15 thanks so much. I have a sigma 35mm and the quality is excellent. I don't have a Tamron in my collection but I'm open to one. Heading over to your album!!
@darylo hi Daryl. Like @vera365 I have the Tamron 16-300mm which I got in January and it has hardly been off my Canon 700D since. I plan to travel using this and my canon 50 mm prime as well. I think this will give a good range without carting heaps of lenses around. I'm pleased with the lens so far as it is versatile, easy to carry and fits in my nifty little backpack ( that doesn't look like a camera bag). We are off on our travels in June so here's hoping it works as a good option. Good luck with your decision.
Yes, the filter is larger - I had to get new polarizer, and new extra lens caps (since I always lose mine). The size wasn't an issue for me, as it does just fit into my Lowepro Sling bag. But it's a tighter squeeze than I had before with the Nikkor 200mm. My bag has an insert inside that gives you two "lens" compartments - I use one of them to stick my 35mm "just in case", and the other one is for the Tamron with the camera attached to it (plus the space left on the other side of the bag for all kinds of kid-related stuff). But since I got the BlackRapid belt that attaches to the bottom of the camera, I rarely even carry the bag with me, at least on smaller outings. Just the camera with the "do-it-all"-lens. So, @kiwinanna - it does work wonderful for my travels and frees my hands for kid handling :)
I also have to say - I didn't shop for this lens, as I won it from the DPS, but now that I've used it, I would go for one of them if I had to spend money on the new one. Just checked out online a comparison of Sigma/Tamron/Canon 18-250 lenses and they didn't see much significant difference between those: http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=35
@vera365 June! Paris for a week and then Provence for a week! I have an 18-135 which will suffice, of course, but I would love more distance capabilities! Thanks so much for your input. My biggest concern is weight and bulk in paris. I think I'm going to drop by camera store to get a feel for the different ones! My 7DMIi is heavy...
@vera365 oh and I'm trying out a black rapid strap this weekend. I will probably have my camera out a good bit of the time when touring but it will be nice to store in my ONA insert when climbing steps and such!
I use the Tamron 18-270 on my EOS 7D and it works really well. I find Sigma lenses a little cool in their colour rendition so I tend to stick to Tamron. Just my own personal opinion with no science to back it up.
I have the Sigma lens. I mostly use it to cover all bases with one lens when travelling. I am happy with it but tend to use prime lenses and a 70-200 more these days. I use a 7D. I'm sure you realise, but it calls itself 'Macro' but technically isn't really a macro lens. Proabably not an issue as I see from the above you are looking for a travel lens. In which case I would recommend it.
Look into the Sigma you mention. It's a venerable favorite, one of the first to hit the market, and I think still the best value you can find. Even new you'll get good deals, and better used. Of the general purpose "super zooms" for APS-C cameras it holds its own against its newer competitors, not attempting too much accounts significantly for its success I think It is comparatively small and not as heavy as most competitors.
I personally have shot with most of them, and would suggest that the 18-250 is still the best value. I think it does a better job than the 18-270 Tamron by a significant margin. Also Sigma has a new 16-300 that I recently tried, and for more than twice as much as you can have the 18-250 for, I don't think it does anything better. I have not shot with the Tamron 16-300.
Also, while not really a macro lens, it does have a significantly closer focus distance than many, and that can, indeed, be useful shooting "pseudo macro" close ups.
No "super zoom" is "perfect" in the sense that prime lenses can be, compromises have to be made to accommodate the long zoom range. But with a little sprucing up in post processing with a good editor, you can do wonders of course.
@davemockford good to hear! I've never owned a Tamron. My Sigma 35mm is sooooo heavy that I only use it for something I know will be brief. It is not a walkaround lens. The 7DMII is a heavy camera too. I walked around with it all day Sat. pretending to be in a city with it attached. I'll be tired by end of day for sure in Paris! Thanks for your input.
@frankhymus it has a great price point for sure, and I rarely need super zoom since I don't do much bird photography. I would like enough to cover some sports (soccer and crosscountry mainly). I think with the crop sensor 7DMII, I'll have enough distance--but will it fire and track rapidly -- probably not as well, but then again, I'm looking for this to be a multipurpose lens. Thankfully, editing programs and RAW help everything! I appreciate the feedback and your own experiences!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I can't go into very specific technical details, as I don't know about them. But I am overall very happy with the lens and didn't have any problems.
Here is the one I mean: TAMRON 16-300 - I have the Nikon-compatible version of that.
If you have any specific questions, please ask - otherwise I can just only say "I like it" :)
The camera stays cleaner since I don't have to switch lenses everywhere once I want a zoomed perspective, and I don't end up missing a shot in the mid-switch, which saves a lot of frustration compared to before. Also benefited my co-travelers, as they don't hear me all the time - "Wait guys, I need to switch lenses!" All the travel on this project is done with the Tamron (London was the last trip, this april, Russia and Greece last summer - you can find the pictures in the project if you want to have a look).
Your advice is very helpful and I'll head iver to your shots. I'm going to France and do not want the hastle of changing lenses while in Paris! In South of france, I can have fun with my 35mm. Thanks agaim!
I also have to say - I didn't shop for this lens, as I won it from the DPS, but now that I've used it, I would go for one of them if I had to spend money on the new one. Just checked out online a comparison of Sigma/Tamron/Canon 18-250 lenses and they didn't see much significant difference between those: http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=35
I personally have shot with most of them, and would suggest that the 18-250 is still the best value. I think it does a better job than the 18-270 Tamron by a significant margin. Also Sigma has a new 16-300 that I recently tried, and for more than twice as much as you can have the 18-250 for, I don't think it does anything better. I have not shot with the Tamron 16-300.
Also, while not really a macro lens, it does have a significantly closer focus distance than many, and that can, indeed, be useful shooting "pseudo macro" close ups.
No "super zoom" is "perfect" in the sense that prime lenses can be, compromises have to be made to accommodate the long zoom range. But with a little sprucing up in post processing with a good editor, you can do wonders of course.
My two cents worth...