Is a Tamron 18-270mm or Canon 75-300mm a good second lens after a 50mm f/1.8?
Asked 4/13/2011
3 views
2 answers
0
I currently have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and want to add a zoom lens. I’m considering the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD or the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM. My budget is about $700–800.
I’d like decent image quality, though it doesn’t need to match a prime exactly. I’m mainly interested in shooting portraits of children, travel, flowers/insects, and weddings. Would either of these be a good choice, or is there a better option in this budget?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
7
A superzoom like that will be the jack of many trades, master of none. If you are used to the sharpness of the prime, you may be seriously disappointed with the softness of a superzoom. My experience is limited to the 18-200 style lenses, but beyond basic sharpness, consider:
You are used to 50 mm f/1.8. You now want to have a starting aperture of f/3.5 (and even then, only at the widest setting). At that aperture, the zoom will be weak, and only by stopping down to something like f/6.3 or f/8 will you get quality close to what you're used to. That will make your entire shooting style different, since there will be much more light required to take the shot.
Composition with the 50mm is much more locked. With the zoom, angle of view becomes another portion of the equation you have to take into consideration when shooting. That may slow you down.
This essay was very informative on my style: Telephoto is for cowards.. That's a style decision. so if you disagree, by all means. But as a result of that, I have no lens longer than 85mm, and have not really found myself limited. That 85mm is an f/1.8 prime, and I love it.
Originally by user266. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user266
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The main tradeoff here is convenience vs. image quality.
The Tamron 18-270mm superzoom gives you a very useful all-in-one range for travel and general shooting, but lenses with such a large zoom range are typically softer, slower, and more distortion-prone than shorter-range zooms or primes. If you’re used to the sharpness and low-light ability of a 50mm f/1.8, you may find a superzoom disappointing, especially since it often needs to be stopped down for better results.
The Canon 75-300mm is a very different lens: it doesn’t cover wide-angle at all, so it’s much less versatile as a general second lens.
A stronger image-quality option mentioned is the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, which is known for being very sharp. The downside is reduced convenience compared with an 18-270mm, and you may need another lens for wider shots.
So: if you want one convenient travel lens and can accept lower optical quality, the Tamron makes sense. If sharpness matters more and you don’t mind changing lenses, a 70-200mm f/4-class lens is the better choice.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why is my Tamron 18-270mm soft or missing focus at 270mm, especially in lower light?
How should I choose a better zoom lens than the 18-55mm kit lens for a Canon 1000D?
Canon 600D: Tamron 18-270mm or Canon 18-135mm as a first lens?
Why is Darktable lens correction greyed out for a Tamron 18-270mm on Ubuntu?
How do I use the Tamron 18-270mm VC PZD Macro for close-up photography?