tamron 17-50mm or tamron 18-270mm
- Thread starter alvinho
- Start date
Those are 2 very different lenses, you want an all in one walkabout lens or do you want a wide aperture lens? Know what you want before deciding
You can't have the best of both worlds.
If theres such a lens, then there will not be a need for any other lenses.
Any reason why? Just because you want the range? What if you want something that performs well in low light?
Last edited:
you are aware of the performance differences between the two lens, along with the fact that the 18-270 will have a much smaller maximum aperture compared to the 17-50 (assuming it's f/2.8 constant)?
why not just get a simple telephoto zoom?
Before you can ask others which is better, ask yourself why you need each or both.
You can only answer your own questions.
Just like buying underwear, have to know what 'package' you have. How much support you need. I can't answer for you, in my case, I need long socks instead.
HTH.
You can only answer your own questions.
Just like buying underwear, have to know what 'package' you have. How much support you need. I can't answer for you, in my case, I need long socks instead.
HTH.
18-270mm is good for general purpose, but you traded more reach for IQ compared to the 17-50mm.
The 17-50mm is faster and sharper in low light. cos of the constant f2.8
At the long end... under low light. the 18-270mm hunts like crazy but if you're traveling and only wants to carry 1 lens for all purpose, this might be your ticket.
The 17-50mm is faster and sharper in low light. cos of the constant f2.8
At the long end... under low light. the 18-270mm hunts like crazy but if you're traveling and only wants to carry 1 lens for all purpose, this might be your ticket.
Agree. I think that the OP has fallen victim to the BBB virus like so many of us have (myself included).
Both are good lenses.
The 18-270 gives you versatility at the cost of low light photography and a slight decrease in over-all IQ.
The 17-50 lens gives you better low light capability and a slight increase in over-all IQ at the cost of versatility.
You must decide which is more important to you.
Override2Zion
Senior Member
If you already have a 17-50mm f/2.8, then just get a cheap zoom like the Sigma/Tamron 70-300mm. That way, when you need a fast lens for those tricky situations, you'd still have your 17-50mm f/2.8 as backup.
buy a time machine, go to 100 or 300 years from now, then buy that 10-1000mm f 1.2 that by that time hopefully already in a size 18-55 kit lens :bsmilie::bsmilie:
just curious guys, interested in getting 17-50mm f2.8 non-VC, do u think the difference in IQ is noticeable compared to 18-55mm 3.5-5.6? and ive heard people saying to get the non-VC edition cos of the iq as well any ideas?
Since ur using canon, y not get the 55-250? Small n sharp less for its price. Besides 20mm more on the long end of 18-270 does make much of a difference. Ur on a dslr system, dont be afraid to change lens!
Get both the lens... ;p
I just got Tamron 17-50mm VC recently and use it at my friend wedding, feel the IQ better than the canon kit 18-55mm.
Had ordered Tamron 18-270mm few days back (before I bought the 17-50mm), as intend to use it for travel purpose, general use. Dun like to carry too much things when on tour.
I just got Tamron 17-50mm VC recently and use it at my friend wedding, feel the IQ better than the canon kit 18-55mm.
Had ordered Tamron 18-270mm few days back (before I bought the 17-50mm), as intend to use it for travel purpose, general use. Dun like to carry too much things when on tour.
Similar threads
