Tamron 28-300 vs new 18-250?

O

Ozzybound

Suspended / Banned
Messages
36
Edit My Images
No
Hello all....

This is my first post, so forgive me for it being a question.

I have a Canon 300D which is pretty much permanently welded to a Tamron 28-300 lens. It covers almost everything that I like to take pictures of.

We are off travelling for a while, and I was going to leave the SLR at home and just use the Fuji F31d which I have been really impressed with. However, I think I will regret not taking the SLR as there will be lots of fantastic photo opportunities where we are going.

So - my question is, in real terms - how much loss of 'zoom' will I notice if I swap my 28-300 for the new 18-250? I realise this may be a difficult thing to quantify, so my apologies in advance.

I like the idea of being able to go a little wider, but I use the SLR more for macro and zoom pictures so I don't want to get the extra width at the expense of too much zoom.

Also, can anyone give an opinion on the macro capabilities of the two lenses as I enjoy macro work.

Thanks for reading, as you may be able to tell from the post I am very new to SLR photography.

Cheers.
 
I don't know either of those lenses but most people that start off with big zoom ranges like that later move on to more normal ranges for the improvement in image quality and flexibility of the larger apertures available.

There are a lot of compromises made to get that zoom range. As to your questions 250 - 300 you won't notice. 18 - 28 is a huge difference.
Macro on these lenses just means it will focus closer than is normal - it is not a true macro and the compact camera may do better for close detail.

Hard to appreciate when you are starting out but there are reasons people pay a lot of money for lenses with only a little zoom range :)

Welcome to the forums.
 
Also no experience of either lens, but

I'd be almost temped to say the opposite, since I vary rarely take landscape shots, but never have enough reach for birdies and wotnot.
.. that said I do use my 17-55 for landscape usually at the 17 end so RP has a very valid point.

Another thing to note is that a zoom of > 3x end to end is making compromises somewhere. IQ/Saturation/focus speed,.... something has to lose out. So generally the less zoom you have the better the lens.
 
Wise words from Robert, I've just replaced my tokina 24-200 and sigma 70-300 with a sigma 17-70 and nikon 70-300mm VR. The tokina was optically great but with any large zoom range lens it was a compromise and images would be soft around the edges at its widest sometimes. Hoping the new lenses are as good as all the reviews I've read, not had much chance to play with them yet :( .
 
Thanks for the replies, it's all interesting stuff.

I think I will stick to the 28-300 for the moment, and take the 18-55 kit lens along as well.

I had a play with the macro end of the 28-300 last night, totally rubbish. I had a sigma 70-300 before, which I traded for the Tamron 28-300 - the Sigma gave cracking shots at macro - ( well, cracking for me, probably pretty mediocre at best in a macro photographers eyes ).

So, maybe the best option is to stick with the 28-300, take the 18-55 as well and spend the money I would have spent swapping the Tamron on a dedicated 1:1 macro lens instead?

Then again, if I am going to be taking three lenses - and my compact Fuji - it may be wise to swap the 28-300 for a longer zoom with an image stabiliser?

Any recommendations for an entry level image stabilised zoom or 1:1 macro?

Thanks.
 
For what it's worth, I've been using a Sony Alpha SLR with the Tamron 28-300 as my primary lens (I also have the Sony f1.4 50mm which is unbelievably sharp and light; and a Tamron 18-70 that I bought last week but doesn't seem quite as sharp as the 28-300 above 50mm). I photograph the Wednesday night yacht races for the California Yacht Club where I'm typically shooting from an anchored "committee boat" in 1-4' swells or from a 14' high-powered inflatable driven by a professional stunt driver. As shown at my website, stevemdr.phanfare.com, the Sony Alpha/Tamron 28-300 combo has enabled me to shoot about 2,000 such photos this year, most of which are VERY sharp when shown on a 4'x6' screen at the parties that follow each race.

For this kind of photography, kinetic energy and the ability to pick out everyone's face and the boat's name, even when they're 50-200' away, is more important than culling all but the best shots. However, I honestly don't think that so many good photos could have been taken routinely even 5 years ago, without the anti-shake capabilities of the Sony and the sharpness/extreme telephoto capabilities of the 28-300. And certainly not for less than $1200 which is what the Alpha; 28-300 and 50mm 1.4 combo cost!

Therefore, if you tend to use the higher end of the wide-telephoto spectrum, I'd say stay with the 28-300 over the 18-250; since most of the reviews tend to say the 18-250 is somewhat soft at the long end.

They also suggest it's somewhat wobbly when fully extended, which would be another kiss of death (literally) when you're in a pitching cockpit. The 28-300 on the other hand, is rock solid even after taking more than a few bumps. Light spray also doesn't seem to phase it; I just change the UV filter if it gets wet.

However, this is compromise -- even for me -- since when one of the races gets within 1-2 feet of the committee boat cockpit where I'm shooting (this happens at least 5 times each evening as boats are going for the starting line, which starts only 10' from the committee boat), even the 28mm setting is much too tight to take full advantage of the shooting situation).

Take a look at some of the photos to see what I mean!
 
Thanks for that - some cracking photos on your website by the way.

I went for a Sigma 70-300 APO and the Tamorn 18-250 in the end. I have not had chance to play with either of them yet, but we are off on our travels from the UK, across the USA & Peru, NZ then Australia so I should have plenty of time to get to know them then.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top