I have a Canon T1i and am looking to upgrade from the kit lenses (18-55 mm, 55-250 mm). Ideally, I would like a reasonably priced lens (~300USD max) that covers a wide range of zoom. I was hoping some of you might have the Tamron 18-200 mm or the 18-270 mm or have used other Tamron lenses and have comments or critiques. Thanks!
I have a Tamron 200-50mm which I use on a Nikon D90. i think that only the middle of the lens is in focus all the time so I think if and when I get lots of money I'll upgrade. It is quite heavy but does get me some good shots.
I have a Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 on my D90....It does serve the purpose of being a decent overall lens but I struggle with light gathering...not the best but definitely not the worst. It stays on my camera most of the time as it covers the range of all my other older lenses.....mostly just take it off if I want a prime lens to shoot something specific with.
I tried the Tamron out. I didn't care for it. I went for eventually the Sigma 18-250mm. A little AF slowness at the 250 end but mostly does great. I have shot everything in my project the past six days with it.
I don't love my 18-270 Tamron lens, but most of my photos were shot with it. So you can look at them and see the quality. I am saving for an L series Canon lens. It is the go to lens on my camera at the moment.
I've just bought the Tamron 70-300 with stabilisation. I'm never going to earn money from taking photos so I was looking for a decent zoom at a reasonable price, and this lens got good reviews. It's not the most elegant lens in the world but it does what it says on the tin. If I had unlimited funds I would definitely go for a Canon L-series lens, but so far I am not disappointed with the Tamron.
OK I'm actaully on my second one, because I can't live without it...I have a very busy life and changing lenses is just a luxury for me. The big Tamron sees me through most everything each day...It's very soft at the long end and very distorted at the short end...but I just love it. The first one got dropped and distorted...getting it repaired turnd out to be a nightmare...so I bought a new one...I have it as my everyday walkaround lens.
@archaeofrog@shadesofgrey i do the same as Shades of Grey. I recently bought a 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 Sigma. The range is fabulous. It really is an overall lens. Better than the kit (in the 55mm stop, it has f4.5 i guess).
But it IS dark. But is the better priced zoom you can get in the entry level lens. Cheaper than the tamron, from what i saw.
And i carry always a 50mm prime for low light shots. Although i should have probably bought a 35 mm because the crop factor is really an issue with this prime.
I have Tamron 18-270mm and I love it! It is not perfect, as all super zoom have few issues, but I put it on wherever I leave the house, not knowing what I'm going to run into, so I have it covered. If you would compare prime 50mm and Tamron, there is a huge difference in speed for example.But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Tamron is fast enough for super zoom and for what I need it for. I got in with in-mail rebate for total price $470 and to me it's worth every penny. If I'm going for w walk I take Tamron,because it's versatile, if I know I'm going to shoot portraits, I take my 50mm, because its fast and sharp. Highly recommend Tamron. (one thing I read in online forums is that sometimes people get bad copy of a lens, that the Tamron quality control sometimes fails) @archaeofrog
Super zooms are a compromise and there will be sharpness issues when compared to shorter range zooms. This is not to say they are necessarily bad. Light loss, chromatic aberration, and softness are all at least slight issues with them.
@sailingmusic Thanks for the insights! Weight is definitely a concern for me, so I'm glad you mentioned it.
@shadesofgrey@gabrielklee Thanks for the heads up about the Sigma. I will definitely compare the two. I understand light is always an issue, but I'm hopefully that for travel natural light will help alleviate that concern at least a little bit.
@juleswoome Thanks, Julie. Were there specific things about the Tamron that you disliked or more of an overall?
@zuzana Thanks Zuzana, that is really helpful information. I do have a 50 mm f/1.8, and I definitely understand I'm not going to get that kind of speed for the kind of money I have to pay! Glad to hear a strong recommendation.
@lilbudhha All good points, but for buying a lens on a budget, those are the kinds of sacrifices that come in to play, right?
@dishaparekh176 Thanks for the comment. Off as in you felt like it didn't focus in the right place or ... ?
@archaeofrog I didn't think the quality/sharpness was any greater than the lenses that I had already and even though it was an 18-200 it wasn't worth it just to have the convenience of having a nice range lens.
@jaimeratchford Still on the fence. I realized, however, that the Tamron 18-200 mm doesn't have image stabilization, while the much more expensive 18-270 mm does. So now I'm mainly trying to convince myself to pony up even more for the 18-270 mm, because I'm not going to shell out a few hundred for a lens without image stabilization (or vibration control or whatever Tamron specifically calls it). I was actually hoping to go into a camera store in the next week or so and get their input.
@archaeofrog All in one zooms, while convenient, offer no upgrade in image quality from kit lenses. Have you considered a 35 or 50 mm prime lens? Very inexpensive and super sharp. Can use in low light without flash. Have razor sharp optics and incredibly shallow dof. IMHO, a much better use of your $. However, if you are set on an all0in-one zoom, get one with image stabilization as you can not shoot sharp images handheld at 200 mm without that feature.
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 wonder if you have checked out any group tests such as this?
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-superzoom-for-canon-dslrs-8-tested-1060915/page:11#articleContent
I haven't used Tamron, but have used an 18-200 for several years and been well pleased with the versatility it offers,
But it IS dark. But is the better priced zoom you can get in the entry level lens. Cheaper than the tamron, from what i saw.
And i carry always a 50mm prime for low light shots. Although i should have probably bought a 35 mm because the crop factor is really an issue with this prime.
@shadesofgrey @gabrielklee Thanks for the heads up about the Sigma. I will definitely compare the two. I understand light is always an issue, but I'm hopefully that for travel natural light will help alleviate that concern at least a little bit.
@juleswoome Thanks, Julie. Were there specific things about the Tamron that you disliked or more of an overall?
@panoman18200 Thanks for the link, Paul, that is really helpful to have a side-by-side comparison.
@swilde Thanks Sue, good to know. I will definitely take a look at what you've done with it!
@lilbudhha All good points, but for buying a lens on a budget, those are the kinds of sacrifices that come in to play, right?
@dishaparekh176 Thanks for the comment. Off as in you felt like it didn't focus in the right place or ... ?
Did you end up purchasing this lens? I am thinking of buying one for traveling and was wondering what you thought of it?
Thanks