Can anyone tell me the difference between a tamron 18-250mm and a tamron 18-270mm


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 14, 2009
28
0
0
#1
Can anyone please enlighten me?
thank you. :)
 

Jul 27, 2008
472
0
0
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#10
is it better to get the 270 or 250??
i have the 18-250 and its :thumbsup:
Especially if you are lazy to lug around a heavy load.

However, i would give the vote to the 18-270VC. At the 250's longest end, i have issues with handshake:sweat: therefore resulting in motion blur. Also, at the longest end, the aperture is a 6.3 which is rather slow. If you have the budget for the VC, go for it.

Cheers~
 

Aug 14, 2009
28
0
0
#11
oh, thanks alot!
and btw do you think that the 270mm is worth the money? :confused:
: im still a beginner.
 

Jul 27, 2008
472
0
0
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#14
In case you misunderstand my intentions, what i meant was no two person have the same "worth" value. Some of the factors to consider would include:

1) Budget (i feel most impt)
2) Purpose. Some ppl buy it for a light setup during travels (one lens fits all)
3) Just want to have it syndrome
4) Etc.

Cheers~
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#15
To me, neither are worth the money if you don't understand what you are buying

1) Have you read reviews on the two lenses you're considering? If you have not done so, I suggest you do.

2) Do you understand the importance of aperture size and how it relates to your photography?

3) Do you understand VC/IS/VR technology?

4) Do you understand the focal length you are buying?

Answer all these questions yourself and you will find yourself more well informed in making lens purchase decisions.
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#16
if you must buy a superzoom, get one with the VC, it helps on the tele end
lots of sample images in the Sigma/Tamron/Tokina forum
 

Anson

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2006
8,210
7
38
ansonchew.com
www.ansonchew.com
#17
Personally I still preferred the Canon/Nikon version of superzoom lens despite the shorter length (200mm vs 250/270mm) mainly because of the F5.6 aperature.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#18
Personally I still preferred the Canon/Nikon version of superzoom lens despite the shorter length (200mm vs 250/270mm) mainly because of the F5.6 aperature.
1/3 stop doesn't make that much of a difference mind you. That's 1/200s and 1/250s, or 1/100s and 1/80s, for instance. Not a very big difference actually. Of course, I wouldn't expect to be shooting in low light with a lens like this, where every 1/3-stop does make a difference.
 

Anson

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2006
8,210
7
38
ansonchew.com
www.ansonchew.com
#20
1/3 stop doesn't make that much of a difference mind you. That's 1/200s and 1/250s, or 1/100s and 1/80s, for instance. Not a very big difference actually. Of course, I wouldn't expect to be shooting in low light with a lens like this, where every 1/3-stop does make a difference.
You can be surprise in the difference a F5.6 would archive compared to a F6.3 during indoor shoot. Which I used the lens for low-light, indoor @ 100~200mm, you can be surprise what you can get if you know how to control your flash. :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom