- Messages
- 2,507
- Location
- Brighton
Anyone use Tamron lenes? I f so what is you opinion of them. I am looking for an alternative 55-200 zoom lens to a Canon as my funds will not stretch to the Canon.
Tamron Lens
- Thread starter missingskin
- Start Date
- Messages
- 1,714
Yes I use a tamron 17-50 2.8 which is a great lens, however the telephotos suck, even canons unless you can stretch to the 55-250 IS or 70-200 f4 as the rest are slow to focus, soft and the chromatic aberrations are terrible. Have a look on eBay I picked my last canon 55-200 there for £50 but it sucked and soon sold it.
- Messages
- 3,482
- Location
- Essex, UK
I'm not a fan of Tamron lenses, although some have had some pretty good reviews. I don't really like most Sigma lenses either, I have 3 Sigma I do still use, but they are nowhere close to the quality of Canon lenses.
To be honest, you get what you pay for in lenses, the more you spend, the better the lens.
Consider looking at second hand lenses, I recently bought a Canon 70 - 200 which is 10 years old. Still an excellent lens, far better than many cheaper New ones.
To be honest, you get what you pay for in lenses, the more you spend, the better the lens.
Consider looking at second hand lenses, I recently bought a Canon 70 - 200 which is 10 years old. Still an excellent lens, far better than many cheaper New ones.
- Messages
- 1,026
tamrons are generally pretty poor. They are a distant relation to sigma and theres a little platform sharing going on between ranges. I had a tamron zoom in my early days, it was slow, dim witted, let very little light in and had terrible edge focus.
Do yourself a favour, save your money, get the canon
The reality is for air shows, even 200 is unlikely to be anywhere near long enough or fast enough for you. I'd say finding an older 70-200 F4 L might be a good bet, as some often come up cheap, the constant F4 aperture and solid sharp focus will make your success rate on photos a lot better. The canon 70-300 IS is not bad but a little slow as its only f5.6 at 300mm and the AF isnt the fastest in the world (but far from awful).
Do yourself a favour, save your money, get the canon
The reality is for air shows, even 200 is unlikely to be anywhere near long enough or fast enough for you. I'd say finding an older 70-200 F4 L might be a good bet, as some often come up cheap, the constant F4 aperture and solid sharp focus will make your success rate on photos a lot better. The canon 70-300 IS is not bad but a little slow as its only f5.6 at 300mm and the AF isnt the fastest in the world (but far from awful).
- Messages
- 6
I have the 28-75 f2.8 in a Sony Alpha fit. It's a pretty good lens on the whole but where this particular one lets itself down is it's incredibly soft when fully open. I have to stop it down to at least 3.5 or even 4.0 to get a sharp image. It can be a pain in low light, but if you have a camera that can handle high ISO it isn't a problem. Build quality is good, the do have some quality control issues so make sure you keep the receipt!
- Messages
- 4,630
missingskin said:
I try to stick to the camera manufacturer's brand wherever possible, in my case, Nikon.
I don't have any experience of modern Tamron lenses, but I'd certainly look at one of them before considering any other Nikon alternative, and that includes Sigma. If you get a good Sigma lens they can be excellent, but I've heard a lot of stories regarding Sigma's patchy QC, so buying one is a bit of a gamble.
Ian
Re: RE: Tamron Lens
Will 200mm be long enough for Airshows?
Sigma do a nice 50-500 OS.
Have a look on Flickr for Airshow images and check out the exif data to see what lens they're using.
You could always rent something before forking out a huge amount of dosh.
missingskin said:
Will 200mm be long enough for Airshows?
Sigma do a nice 50-500 OS.
Have a look on Flickr for Airshow images and check out the exif data to see what lens they're using.
You could always rent something before forking out a huge amount of dosh.
- Messages
- 4,630
Any zoom lens is a compromise, whereas a fixed focal length or "prime" lens they get called these days is designed to do just one job.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very good zoom lenses about, and they're very convenient, but a 200mm prime lens will always be better than a zoom set to 200mm.
It all really comes down to what you will be doing with the images once you have taken them.
Ian
Don't get me wrong, there are some very good zoom lenses about, and they're very convenient, but a 200mm prime lens will always be better than a zoom set to 200mm.
It all really comes down to what you will be doing with the images once you have taken them.
Ian
- Messages
- 3,482
- Location
- Essex, UK
Don't discount the idea of a fixed 2.8 200mm lens, and a 2x and a 1.4x extender.
That would give you these combinations. To work these must all be good quality lenses though.
200 @f2.8
280 @f3.8 ish
400 @f5.6
560 @f7.6 ish
That would give you these combinations. To work these must all be good quality lenses though.
200 @f2.8
280 @f3.8 ish
400 @f5.6
560 @f7.6 ish
I've used Tokina telephotos in the past. Old models though - pre AF. The image was easily good enough for 16 x 12 prints and build quality outstanding.
I've got a couple for Sigma EX lenses and they've both produced many good images. I once had a Sigma die when the AF gearing broke, but that was after 7 years' use, including very hot and humid conditions in SE Asia and the 'States. All in all, not too bad.
Of course for Cannon you won't get any better than L glass. But if you're not a gazillionaire, check out Tokina and Sigma. Steer clear of the consumer grade superzooms though. For that money I'd rather get a older secondhand prime telephoto and live will manual focus. Having a huge zoom range and AF doesn't help if all your photos have low contrast, poor colour rendition and no straight lines!
I've got a couple for Sigma EX lenses and they've both produced many good images. I once had a Sigma die when the AF gearing broke, but that was after 7 years' use, including very hot and humid conditions in SE Asia and the 'States. All in all, not too bad.
Of course for Cannon you won't get any better than L glass. But if you're not a gazillionaire, check out Tokina and Sigma. Steer clear of the consumer grade superzooms though. For that money I'd rather get a older secondhand prime telephoto and live will manual focus. Having a huge zoom range and AF doesn't help if all your photos have low contrast, poor colour rendition and no straight lines!
- Messages
- 91
I'm a bit late to thread but thought I would add my opinion. Having used both the Sony and Tamron versions of the same lens (both manufactured by Tamron) I can say that the Tamron is a definite step down from the Sony. While optically the performance is the same the tamron feels like it could break at any moment. When zooming the tramron feels very cheap and the resistance on the zoom ring is far from uniform to the extent of almost being jerky. I thought perhaps I had a bad example but trying another tamron lens was a repeat of this experience. I hear the higher end tamrons are better though but no experience to talk of. Personally I would buy a second hand camera manufacturer lens (in my case Sony or Minolta) over a tamron or even sigma at the bottom end of the market. At the end of the day you get what you pay for!