Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Tamron

profile picture
steezy_ness
Posts: 19 - Karma: 10
does anyone know about these lenses? i heard they had a slow auto-focus but its been a while ago... im wondering if, nowadays, they are still slow..
are they good? decent for its price? its gonna be for a canon kiss x4/550d/rebel t2i
my dad's in japan and he found a tamon 18-270mm.. @ f2.8 (i think).... so its pretty decent i guess.. for about $300, so its a pretty good deal for an all -around lens..
also, are there any differences between kiss or rebel or 550d? like file format or anything at all? despite the logo of course..

any tips or suggestions are appreciated

thanks
Sep 7 2010 5:48AM
0 0
profile picture
canterbury
Posts: 2382 - Karma: 55
it's the same camera internally.
Sep 7 2010 6:06AM
0 0
profile picture
50in07
Posts: 3070 - Karma: 1,471
Jump on that I have the same lens and its really nice.
Sep 7 2010 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
i feel like at 18-270 theres got to be some SERIOUS distortion. thats an absurdly wide range of focal lengths.
Sep 7 2010 5:20PM
0 0
profile picture
solitaryman
Posts: 3578 - Karma: 123
.
Sep 8 2010 2:48AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
I have an old 35-210 f2.8 on my film camera, and its been great so far...it should be noted that I'm not much of a photographer, but I try.
Sep 8 2010 9:51AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,272
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a phenomenal lens. it's ridiculously sharp and performs much better than the canon 17-40 L and it's like half the price. the af is a bit whiny and slow but i never found it to be a big deal
Sep 8 2010 10:33AM
0 0
profile picture
hollygrove
Posts: 7845 - Karma: 93
Really? Tell me more, I had been looking at picking up the 17-40 L..
Sep 8 2010 3:02PM
0 0
profile picture
steezy_ness
Posts: 19 - Karma: 10
thanks for the input
ill buy this lens for now.. im not getting the kit lens.. the kit lens is about 50 bucks hwere my dad is, and the tamron is about 300
or should i also get the kit lens just in case?
i heard the tamron is a compact lens for a 18-270mm, so it should be fine for me, for now.

thanks NS
Sep 8 2010 8:24PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Ill back his statement and the lens. I love it. Most of the shots in my flickr are using that lens.
Sep 8 2010 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
great 3rd party lens company.
Sep 8 2010 8:34PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,272
tamron is faster and sharper. it's 2.8 vs. 4 and there's way less edge blur on the tammy. the 17-40 L is sort of the faux ami of lenses. it's super appealing because it's L but it's the lowest quality L lens and aside from the weather sealing and bombproof-ness of the L series it's really nothing special. the autofocus will be much better than the tamron but the tammy will be sharper all around and a much better lens
Sep 8 2010 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
dude, the sigma equivelent is so much nicer. i think its around 100 more but its so worth it because of its general build (insanely smooth focus ring), really fast hypersonic AF helps alot too.
Sep 8 2010 10:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
but are the optics better? because id rather have the slower AF than worse optics.
Sep 8 2010 10:29PM
0 0
profile picture
J-Evs
Posts: 6387 - Karma: 1,615
going to buy the 17-50 in a bit
Sep 8 2010 11:01PM
0 0
profile picture
basedjase
Posts: 2510 - Karma: 640
This. Go for a smaller focal range. If you buy cheap, you buy twice. Go for the 17-50. having good glass and smaller zoom is better than a crazy zoom and shitty optics.
Sep 8 2010 11:13PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)