tamron 17-50mm or tamron 18-270mm


alvinho

New Member
Oct 4, 2010
125
0
0
#1
shall i get tamron 18-270mm instead of tamron 17-50mm?
 

alvinho

New Member
Oct 4, 2010
125
0
0
#3
need a wide aperture lens and oso can zoom more. able to bring around easily
 

Jun 14, 2010
973
0
0
Admiralty
#5
need a wide aperture lens and oso can zoom more. able to bring around easily
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.
 

alvinho

New Member
Oct 4, 2010
125
0
0
#6
actually i have tamron 17-50mm and canon 50mm f1.8, just feel like selling my tamron 17-50mm to buy tamron 18-270mm
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#8
actually i have tamron 17-50mm and canon 50mm f1.8, just feel like selling my tamron 17-50mm to buy tamron 18-270mm
Any reason why? Just because you want the range? What if you want something that performs well in low light?
 

Last edited:

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#10
actually i have tamron 17-50mm and canon 50mm f1.8, just feel like selling my tamron 17-50mm to buy tamron 18-270mm
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?
 

dingaroo

New Member
Dec 6, 2009
1,950
0
0
Singapore | East
#11
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.
 

LeChucky

New Member
Jul 28, 2010
94
0
0
#12
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.
 

raydio

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2009
3,522
2
38
Toronto, Canada
#13
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.
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. :)
 

theory87

New Member
Sep 11, 2007
302
0
0
30
#14
Impossible to have both. Best option to you will be 24-70mm f2.8.
 

#15
actually i have tamron 17-50mm and canon 50mm f1.8, just feel like selling my tamron 17-50mm to buy tamron 18-270mm
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.
 

willdoang

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,556
2
38
34
east, near dakota MRT
#16
need a wide aperture lens and oso can zoom more. able to bring around easily
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:
 

Aug 2, 2010
22
0
0
#17
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?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#18
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?
it will probably be noticeable, particularly at the larger apertures.
 

Sep 27, 2010
58
0
0
#19
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.
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!
 

huatman

Senior Member
Nov 27, 2010
2,522
3
38
East
phleephoto.com
#20
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.
 

Top Bottom