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


Status
Not open for further replies.

daaaniel-c

New Member
Aug 14, 2009
28
0
0
Can anyone please enlighten me?
thank you. :)
 

rofl...
 

erm, what bout the 18-270 with VC. ?
 

is it better to get the 270 or 250??
 

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~
 

oh, thanks alot!
and btw do you think that the 270mm is worth the money? :confused:
: im still a beginner.
 

Worth is subjective.

That said, check you wallet and have a heart to heart talk with it. You will have you answer.

Cheers~
 

alright then. thank you very much..
 

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~
 

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.
 

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
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.