Tamron for my Canon 600D

[Reinhold]

Hi guys - this question has been asked before, I'm sure, (point to the answer please ), but here it is again:

I'm still rather new to this - bought my Canon ½ year ago - but I have bought a Canon 55-250 mm lens.
And...I'm allready "tired" of making changes from my 18-55mm to my 55-270mm, so I am thinking of buying the Tamron 18-270mm PZD.

Is that an okay lens? Or should I stick to buying only Canon lenses? (and it IS a question of money, too! ).

Greetings - Johnny Reinhold

[davidedric]

Hi Jonny,

I think it all depends on what you want or can accept. I have the 600D, a Sigma 17-70 and. Tamron 70-300. I'm happy with both the lenses. I also decided to buy the Tamron 18-270 for the same reason as you, to use as a walkabout lens. I thought it was OK at first, but in practice I find I rarely use it because the IQ isn't up there with the other lenses. So it really depends what price you place on convenience. If you were in the UK I'd ask you to make me an offer, but don't know about Denmark.

Dave

[Trina]

Johnny, I would suggest you go to a site like B&H or Amazon and look up the lens you are interested in... and read the reviews or do a search for the lens +review and read what other people think, sometimes those reviews are much more in depth .... if they have real problems you will see it mentioned over and over again.... I have no problem buying Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma (there is one I have my eye on....) I feel pretty strongly that in buying Canon you are mostly buying a name...If your on a budget as I am I cannot justify buying a name. I know there are others that disagree strongly with that line of thought...

When I bought my 7D I also got the Canon 28-135mm with it.. This lens has REALLY cut down on my swapping lens. I also have the two you mentioned that came with my rebel... and can really relate to getting "tired" of always changing when you need just a bit more reach.....

[DanK]

Johnny,

You really have two different questions here.

One is: is it OK to buy a second brand, such as Tamron, rather than Canon? The answer is in general, yes. Tamron and Sigma both make some superb lenses. However, they also make some that are not superb. The best is to decide what kind of lens you want, e.g., speed and zoom range, and then read reviews for the competitors of that type. One of my lenses is a Tamron 28-75, and it has served me very well. It was also a great bargain relative to the competition.

The other question hiding in your post is this: is it a good idea to buy a superzoom (very large zoom ratio) for convenience? I know nothing about the specific lens you are asking about, but it has a zoom factor of 15, which is huge. Most of the best zooms have zoom factors of 3 or so, although there are some very good lenses with much bigger ranges, such as the EF-S 15-85, which has a zoom factor approaching 6. In general (there are always exceptions), the larger the zoom factor, the larger the design compromises, and the lower the optical quality, at least at some parts of the range. Again, I don't know that particular lens, but I would be surprised if it matched the quality of competitors with ranges 1/3 to 1/5 as large. This is just a trade-off: if the convenience is more important to you than the difference in optical quality, then go for a superzoom. If your preference lies in the other direction (mine does), you probably will stick with smaller zoom factors.

So, I would check reviews for this particular lens with that in mind. You can also compare lens reviews here: http://tinyurl.com/n2dd2v4. Put in a camera body with a similar sensor, if yours is not listed, and two lenses from the drop down menu. Then look at various apertures and focal lengths.

Dan

[davidedric]

Hi again,

I did just as Trina suggests and read all the reviews. I thought I could live with the downsides for the convenience, but found I couldn't. Any chance of renting one for a weekend to try out?

Dave

[Geoff F]

I haven't used that particular lens, although I did get the Sigma 28-300 once when it was attached to a secondhand camera which I bought. That one was poor.

This Tamron also has a considerable size range which normally isn't good for a budget lens.

There is a review here

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/41...0_3563vc_canon

Basically, I suppose it says reasonable for the price, but don't expect too much from it.

Personally I would stick with what you already have.

The Canon 28-135 which Trina mentioned is a good lens which covers the mid range. Has it been partially superseded by a 18-135 now?

I eventually upgraded my 28-135 for a 24-105 L at twice the price; and I did miss the bit at the far end. The cheaper lens was just as sharp in the centre although the 24-105 scored towards the edges particularly in lower contrast conditions.

And now I've gone for the Tamron 24-70 which loses even more at the long end. Seems a good lens but not sure if I did the correct thing size wise.

[dje]

Hi Johnny

For reasons the others have given, I'd be inclined to avoid a lens with such a large zoom range.

I think you need to look closely at why you find yourself changing from the 18-55 to the 55-250. If it's mainly to get a bit more reach but nothing like the full 250mm most of the time, you could consider the Canon 18-135mm that Geoff mentions. It's not a particularly expensive lens. Sigma also have an 18-125mm lens.

Dave

[Brev00]

Tamron makes an older fx superzoom called the 28-300 xr di if that was my first lens on my D90. I thought I would get rid of it when I bought the Sigma 17-70 os and the Tamron 70-300 vc but have found it of enormous use in spots. I can't speak for the 18-270 and am sure it has its flaws, but the same could be said about my lens and I have enjoyed it tremendously over the years. Now that we all know so much, it is probably a good idea to test it out and see if it will keep you happy. Look at the flickr group site to see some actual images.

[yauman]

I purchased the Tamron 18-300 for my Nikon earlier this year for my trip to Asia - trekking through the jungles of Borneo and wanted to avoid changing lens as much as possible. My experience with it was OK as a "tourist" lens - one size fits all. The auto-focus is not very fast and it's not very sharp at the extreme ends of the zoom range. Lots of distortion at the 18-25mm range (nothing Lightroom cannot fix well.) But who cares when shooting hornbill, orang-utans and proboscis monkeys with trees and jungle as background. So, if you want to travel and take snapshots of your trips, it's a great lens and very convenient. When I sometimes use it for my model shoots, I'm not impressed with the results.

[Davey]

hmm I don't think the massive zoom range in that price bracket is worth it but that's just me. The reach always seems barely useable too from what I found IQ was not good enough on the long end of them so much that I would try and avoid it which defeats point. Not so bad in the very expensive end of things but still not as good as smaller range. Not just sharpness issue but distortion and ca etc can be more of issue.

I use a tamron 17-50mm and canon 70-200 f4 and find IQ is good enough and much higher than a super zoom at the price of both of those combined but you have tried similar combo and find you swap out so perhaps condensing it to a lens in the middle would work?

Do you shoot long or wide the most? Looking over your shots you can probably tell what lengths you favour. For instance if you often switched to the 55-270 but only used it at 100mm ish but used the 18-55 more and tended to go wide a LOT then 15-85mm f3.5 5.6 may be a good compromise? This is just example not a lens recommendation but you get the idea.

The obvious issue is if you can't have any lens changes for whatever reason yet NEED those focal lengths in which case you have little choice. Maybe condensing the extremes of focal lengths you need in one lens wont work for you but I suggest it in case not considered it.

[rpcrowe]

Johnny,

The answer is quite simple! Whether the Tamron 18-270mm PZD might be suitable for you depends on three interconnected factors:

1. Your ultimate uses for the majority of your images. Sharing on sites like Facebook and printing to small sizes at the photo section of a general purpose store does not require as good image quality as when you plan on printing larger sizes or entering contests and definitely when shooting for pay...

2. Your personal need/desires for image quality. I have been a professional photographer for most of mylife and, although I no longer shoot for pay; I still want the best quality imagery possible. I am used to top-line imagery and anything less disturbs me.

3. Do you need fast and accurate auto-focus and a relatively wide aperture for your shooting? The extended range zooms will not provide those parameters...

I am 73 years old and I shoot with two Canon 7D DSLR cameras. I have a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on one camera and a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a second camera. Although that is a bit of a load for an old man, I consider the burden worthwhile since I have the advantages of an extended range zoom lens (17-200mm focal range at my finger tips - I don't miss the 55-70mm gap) and I also have great IQ, lightning fast and accurate auto focus, as well as: a constant f/2.8 aperture in my mid-range zoom and a constant f/4 aperture in my telephoto.

You might mention that the Tamron 18-270mm PZD has a 70 mm advantage on the telephoto side over my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I will grantthat but, I suspect that I could get better image quality by slightly cropping images from the L lens than a user of the Tamron 18-270mm PZD gets at 270mm. I would certainly have a faster aperture at 200mm....

[proseak]

I've been looking at just this lens type, and at the moment Sigma seem well ahead

Here are the conclusions pages from DPreview;

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...5-6p3-vc-pzd/5

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...os-hsm-macro/5

User reviews on Amazon concur.

Here in the UK, the Sigma is also c. 10% cheaper