Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Nov 2010 (Sunday) 19:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron 17-50 or 18-270 ??

 
LudaChris
Member
64 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2010
     
Nov 07, 2010 19:59 |  #1

I'm considering both of these lenses for use on my my 40D, which is without a lens at the moment. Prices are $549 and $479 respectively after rebate from Tamron. I like the faster speed of the 17-50, but also think the added reach of the 18-270 would be nice. Which would you choose and why?


[Insert Cool Camera Gear Here]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
zelseman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,922 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Tahlequah, OK
     
Nov 07, 2010 20:03 |  #2

ALL super zooms(18-270 included) that I have used have lacked IQ compared to more traditional range lenses. I would save some more money and grab a used 17-50 non VC and a 70-200. I think it is much more useful.

It all kind of depends on what you shoot. Professionally? Semi-pro? Around the house? I would never go into a shoot depending on a 18-270 to deliver.


Gear List
Website (external link)/Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LudaChris
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
64 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2010
     
Nov 07, 2010 22:37 |  #3

All the shooting I do is casual walkaround type stuff, so I wouldn't be depending on a lens for anything specific. Both of those lenses are in the range of what I'm able to spend at the moment, so I guess it boils down to which gives the best bang for the buck.


[Insert Cool Camera Gear Here]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zelseman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,922 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Tahlequah, OK
     
Nov 08, 2010 11:03 |  #4

Well for convenience, the 18-270 offers the most range for the money obviously. So, if you don't need a fixed aperture or consistent quality, then the 18-270 seems good for you.


Gear List
Website (external link)/Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Nov 08, 2010 11:14 |  #5

LudaChris wrote in post #11243150 (external link)
I'm considering both of these lenses for use on my my 40D, which is without a lens at the moment. Prices are $549 and $479 respectively after rebate from Tamron. I like the faster speed of the 17-50, but also think the added reach of the 18-270 would be nice. Which would you choose and why?

You shouldn't ask why we would choose one for your needs. No one here can tell you which to get since no one knows what you want to primarily do with the lens (or what you want the lens to do for you).

These are very different lenses. Both have their place. But if you value speed and IQ, then get the 17-50 VC. If you value all-in-one convenience, then the superzoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alwaySleepy
Senior Member
276 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 08, 2010 23:36 |  #6

I am a very casual shooter looking for an "all around lens" I plan to get a UWA prime and an 85mm prime in the future for when I want/need the IQ. Just received my 18-270 a few minutes ago.


-Gear List-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ryan7490
Senior Member
264 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 08, 2010 23:38 |  #7

I've used the 17-50 vc and I can say, its it great lens. For some reason everyone on here has a grudge against it. But it is sharp.


Nikon D610, 50 f/1.8, 70-300 VRII


 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rjx
Goldmember
Avatar
2,670 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Santa Clara, California
     
Nov 08, 2010 23:41 |  #8

LudaChris wrote in post #11243150 (external link)
I'm considering both of these lenses for use on my my 40D, which is without a lens at the moment. Prices are $549 and $479 respectively after rebate from Tamron. I like the faster speed of the 17-50, but also think the added reach of the 18-270 would be nice. Which would you choose and why?

Which 17-50? VC or non VC?

Ryan7490 wrote in post #11250845 (external link)
I've used the 17-50 vc and I can say, its it great lens. For some reason everyone on here has a grudge against it. But it is sharp.

Have you used the non VC?


"It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say"
“Photos are everywhere. You just have to know how to look.”

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ryan7490
Senior Member
264 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 08, 2010 23:48 |  #9

rjx wrote in post #11250855 (external link)
Have you used the non VC?

No why?


Nikon D610, 50 f/1.8, 70-300 VRII


 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rjx
Goldmember
Avatar
2,670 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Santa Clara, California
     
Nov 09, 2010 00:05 |  #10

Ryan7490 wrote in post #11250887 (external link)
No why?

It's not that the VC version is bad. But the IQ is not as good as the non VC version. That's why many people don't care for it as much as the non VC.


"It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say"
“Photos are everywhere. You just have to know how to look.”

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wigloc
Senior Member
297 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Finland
     
Nov 09, 2010 00:42 |  #11

I'm about to buy for a next lens this 17-50 2.8 Tamron VC. 399€ in Finland. The 18-270 is quite too big compromise on lenses so you better have a good normal focal and some tele zoom than the super duper zoomie doomie poopie..


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
g3org3y
Senior Member
Avatar
553 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Nov 09, 2010 14:49 |  #12

LudaChris wrote in post #11243150 (external link)
I'm considering both of these lenses for use on my my 40D, which is without a lens at the moment. Prices are $549 and $479 respectively after rebate from Tamron. I like the faster speed of the 17-50, but also think the added reach of the 18-270 would be nice. Which would you choose and why?

Surely a lot depends on the type of photography you are into and the focal lengths you typically work at. The 17-50 is certainly highly regarded here. Given the range of the 18-270 I wouldn't be surprised if it is somewhat compromised in its performance.


EOS 400D, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17 -50, Nifty Fifty f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2, 70-200L f/4, Speedlite 430EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Nov 09, 2010 18:07 |  #13

LudaChris wrote in post #11243150 (external link)
Which would you choose and why?

If I was forced to have only one lens, I'd have to chose the 18-270, otherwise I'd miss out on an entire world of shots that are impossible with the 17-50, such as headshots, sports, stage, wildlife, and everything else that requires telephoto.

Think of it this way: would you rather have a mediocre shot or no shot at all? With the 17-50, you'll get great shots, but you'll have to just miss out on all the telephoto shots. With the 18-270, you'll get mediocre shots (less control over DOF, poorer image quality), but you wont be limited by angle of view.


Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
landth
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Baulkham Hills
     
Nov 09, 2010 20:18 |  #14

I went down to Mogo zoo last weekend, the 18-270 didn't leave my camera despite the 15-85 sitting in the bag on my back, I was able to get most of my "nicest" shots only because I could reach beyond the 85mm mark.
Plenty of review readers will bag the long Tamron, I haven't seen many users do the same...
The lenses you are looking at do not genuinely serve the same purpose, despite the focal overlap, if you shoot mostly wide or in lower light the short Tamron is possibly better suited, if you want a genuine walkabout, its very hard to go past the 18-270 VC for value and performance tbh.


Cheers, Len
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,413 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron 17-50 or 18-270 ??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Glassy
812 guests, 343 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.