yet another lens question

J

jc101

Suspended / Banned
Messages
124
Name
james
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys I currently have the 18-55 kit lens, nifty fifty, sigm 10-20mm. tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6. (came with kit). 100mm macro lens.
I am after a new walk about for street photography, portraiture etc. I like the depth of field (blurred background) of the 2.8 70-200 L IS as well as the speed. I have seen a few super zooms that interest me, namely the tamron 28-300 xr di vc, tamron 18-270mm di ll v, Any views?
I like the idea of not having to swap from kit lens to the 70 -300mm as super zoom will cover that range, Is that reality though?. Or would i be better just getting a better 70-either 200/300mm. Help please :help::help:
 
I have just punted my Tamron 18 - 270. Felt that the sharpness was a little lacking.
 
It's simply quality vs convenience. The 70-200 is going to give noticeably better IQ, and I doubt if you'll find an 18-300 as fast as f/2.8.

You really want comments from people who have tried both, and someone'll be along in a minute to say they've got all 3 lenses (17-xx, xx-300 & 17-300) and that the megazoom never leaves their camera, but the whole point of dSLR is quality and being able to change lenses. "You might as well have a P&S if you just use an all-encompassing megazoom".
 
I have a non-VC Tamron 28-300 which is a very competent walk-about lens but I also have 10-20, 24-70 & 70-200 when I'm taking specific shots.

That's the advantage of being able to change lenses :)
 
How much of a blurred background would the cannon f4.0 70-200 L give me compared to the 2.8. I am mainly wanting to uprade my current 70-300. The reason behind thinking about a superzoom was for street, so i could carry less and not have to swap lenses if a shot presented itself.
 
I'm not sure if there is a significant difference in blur/bokeh between f4 & f2.8.

This was taken through a dirty window with my Sigma 70-200 at f4 :D

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