Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 30, 2011, 1:25 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Where their ranges overlap, the Tamron 18-270 isn't as good as the Canon 18-55 IS that comes with the T2i/T3i. And if you need something longer, Tamron's own $154 70-300 Di LD is better than the $525 18-270 (after $100 rebate.) And if you really need the image stabilization, Tamron's $369 SP 70-300 VC (after $50 rebate) runs rings around it.

You would have to change lenses occasionally, but I think $156 plus lower image quality is a high price to pay for a little convenience.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2011, 2:41 PM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I agree with TCAV in principle. There is no "great" super zoom. The problem is - everyone has a different threshold for what is "good enough".
For example, I suspect that Simon40 and I have different opinions on whether the tamron produces "good enough" outdoor sports images. Doesn't mean one of us is right and the other wrong. It just means "good enough" is subjective.

One thing is absolutely certain - no f5.6 lens is going to get you good results for indoor sports (such as basketball or swimming). Whether we're talking a super zoom or 70-300 - doesn't really matter. So, if you really want to shoot those sports you're going to have to go with a more specialized lens.

But for other shooting needs I agree with TCAV - you can spend less money and get noticeably better quality results going with a 2-lens solution.

It is worth noting though - Tamron has never been known for the speed of the focus motors in their lenses. I believe they have a newer motor but haven't seen much input from qualified sports shooters to indicate that it can compete with Sigma HSM or Canon Ring USM focus motors. But, of course, you're getting in to some very expensive lenses there. But for sports, that focus motor makes a HUGE difference. All depends on your goals on your definition of "good enough".
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2011, 5:52 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

I could get good enough to me of my kids at martial art competitions using my Canon XT and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 lens. Good enough to send to family, facebook, or put in the photo album. Lately I see many parents shooting with kit lenses at the competitions and some using a flash. The last couple of years it seems like there have been an increase of parents with DSLRs. If I weren't spending all that money on my kids' training and competition travel, I could get nicer indoor L'equipment.

What about a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-F4 lens?
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2011, 6:36 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 is one of the better stabilized, large aperture standard zooms.

But I would hesitate to call any of them very good, except the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS USM.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2011, 6:43 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
It is worth noting though - Tamron has never been known for the speed of the focus motors in their lenses. I believe they have a newer motor but haven't seen much input from qualified sports shooters to indicate that it can compete with Sigma HSM or Canon Ring USM focus motors. But, of course, you're getting in to some very expensive lenses there. But for sports, that focus motor makes a HUGE difference. All depends on your goals on your definition of "good enough".
From the SLRGear.com Review of the Tamron 70-300 Di SP VC USD:
Quote:
Tamron has employed a new focusing system with this lens, the Ultrasonic Silent Drive. The lens focuses very quickly - it takes about one second to go through its focusing range - and it does so nearly silently.
What that means in the grand scheme of things, I don't know, but it sounds promising.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2011, 9:10 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Lindenhurst, Ny
Posts: 5
Default

Thank you all for your help. TCav- I went with your recommendation and purchased the Tamron 70-300. It is going under the christmas tree. Kids need to think I was good this year!
lennymas69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2011, 10:58 AM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lennymas69 View Post
Am I incorrect in assuming I can crop the photo at least twice as much as as I could with my current camera and still have nice 5x7 prints?
That depends on how much you're cropping and what your expectation for quality is. ;-)

If you crop a photo to look like you're using twice as much optical zoom, you end up with only 1/4 (not 1/2) the original pixels.

If you crop a photo to look like you're using 4 times the original zoom (for example, trying to crop a photo taken at 50mm to look like it was taken at 200mm), then you're only going to have 1/8 the original pixels.

Also, higher resolution sensors are going to place more demands on the lens quality needed for best results. So, with less than stellar lenses, you may find that "per pixel sharpness" is lower than you were getting with a lower resolution sensor using the same lens (because the lens may not be able to resolve as many line pairs/mm needed to take advantage of the higher pixel density in a higher resolution sensor).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2011, 12:42 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimc View Post
if you crop a photo to look like you're using 4 times the original zoom (for example, trying to crop a photo taken at 50mm to look like it was taken at 200mm), then you're only going to have 1/8 the original pixels.
1/16.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:24 AM.