Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 15, 2007, 1:12 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

JimC-

Many thanks for your post. I agree with you completely. The Tamron 18-250mm lens is indeed a versitile lens, but none the less a dim lens. My thought was that a good external flash on the DSLR camera could cover those types of photos. I know that my Nikon SB-800 could probably handle the chore.

I am sure that you can see what generated my post. The whole idea was to provide a logical and simple launching platform for the folks just getting started with a DSLR camera.

Sarah Joyce

mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 1:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

This is a chart I created to show the focal lengths and maximum apertures of my lenses.



The KM (Tamron) 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 was my first lens. It is now, by far, the dimmest lens I own at any focal length. The lesson I've learned from my superzoom is that it was a waste of money. I paid $500 for it, and KEH will buy it from me for $219.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 2:25 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
I know that my Nikon SB-800 could probably handle the chore.
So, after someone buys a dSLR and a Tamron 18-250 on your recommendation, when are you going to tell them that they also need a $300 flash? [suB]:-)[/suB]

And remember that the Tamron 18-250 doesn't autofocus on a Nikon D40/D40x.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 5:11 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

Mind you, I don't own this lens, but the phrase "Jack of all trades and master of none" comes to mind. Unless you have to travel light (still I think this is not the lens I would choose) with only one lens, I can't see much point in buying this lens to start the DSLR phoography. Optically or build quality wise this lens isn't ideal, neither it's cheap at $500. IMHO it's a much better idea to buy a camera with a kit zoom and add a 50-200 or 70-300mm lens, now you even have a choise of VR, IS or whatever lenses. You can even squeeze in a third party TTL flash and it will be still cheaper than camera body + Tamron 18-250mm and better. Although I have to say, that the idea of a lens that can cover about 90% of usually used phocal ranges does look attractive, but not just yet and not with this lens. Personally, I would rather have a DSLR with all the usual accessories and lenses and a good quality superzoom digicam for those 'travel light - one lens/one camera' occasions.
I may be completely wrong here.
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 5:23 PM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'll be the first to admit that a one lens solution is attractive.

Heck, my wife has many thousands of prints from a one lens solution on a Nikon Body, and she used the same lens for many years, never once asking me to get her anything different.

But, that one lens solution was a 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (a 2x zoom lens). ;-)

Many other photographers have gone with a different one lens solution (for example a 50mm), without needing more lenses.

I think the issue is that new camera owners expect to have huge zoom ranges available now. So, in order to entice them to go with a DSLR solution, camera and lens manufacturers are going to accomodate them, whether or not they need that kind of zoom range.

Personally, I keep a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 on my camera most of the time (giving me approximately the same angle of view I'd get using a 36-127mm on a 35mm camera). That's a very good compromise from my perspective (sharpness, zoom range, brightness, etc.) and works well in most conditions I'd use a camera in.

I only switch to other zooms or primes when I need something brighter. I really don't use longer lenses much. But, I can understand it if others do want/use the super zoom type lenses, despite some compromises in optical quality.

Any lens choice is a compromise (focus speed, optical quality, size, weight, cost and more), and each user will have different preferences in a solution to meet their needs.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 5:25 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Well, I guess I am at least loosing on this one!

At the outset, it seem like an easy way to ease newbies into a DSLR camera. However, you have made some very valid points, and I will certainly admit, with ease, that you have all raised very valid and correct points.

I will agree, that while it seemed very convenient, there is most probably no single DSLR lens solution that will handle every photo situation.

However, it was a fun discussion.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 5:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Well, if they would just extend the range to 500mm at the long end, and maintain a max aperture of f/2.8 trhoughout, at the same price...... :-):evil:

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 5:45 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Brian-

I love your approach! I'd go for that one!

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 5:57 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
Well, if they would just extend the range to 500mm at the long end, and maintain a max aperture of f/2.8 trhoughout, at the same price.
It would probably be soft atthe longend. :-)
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2007, 7:42 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

TCav-

I won't rat on you if you become human for just a few moments. VT and I were just sharing a bit of joint humor. Is that so difficult to understand?

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber 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 6:50 AM.