need lense advice

[jwsciontc]

anyone have imput on the tamron 18-270

 

[JerryPH]

I do not, unfortunately, but have you tried googling it? I am sure there are reviews and opinions out there.

 

[Txaggie08]

Most of those extremely wide zooms are a little soft on the far end, and almost all of them are f5 or higher on the far end(I know the sigma 18-200 is f6.3). Stick with a little narrower zoom range and avoid to much of the "do it all" lenses IMO.

I would MUCH prefer the 70-200 f4L new or a 70200 f2.8L used(or the sigma version in f2.8 new).

 

[Overread]

some early thoughts from another guy:
http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3434
chances are he might do a more indepth review at a later date

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

Switch has said this already but definately go for the 70-200 F4L if you can afford it. will not be disapointed and its worth that extra 100mm.

 

[jwsciontc]

yeah i know the canon L lenses are the way to go but i wont be using it that much and wont have the demand for those near perfect pictures they give. I'm on a pretty tight budget, wanna keep it around 500 or under, and far zoom is a pretty large factor. the 12x on my S5 is decent but sometimes i wish i had farther. i mainly shoot my car, but need the zoom for soccer and marching band, where a far zoom is needed, and from what i can see, it is pretty sharp at full 270.

i hate making decisions

 

[tsaraleksi]

If you are shooting sports, then the L is really the only way to go. You can crop a sharp shot down to be equivalent to what you could have gotten from the 270 and have better quality.

 

[jwsciontc]

i know but the only thing is that i think sometimes the 200 won't be enough

 

[tsaraleksi]

i know but the only thing is that i think sometimes the 200 won't be enough

Perhaps. But you could crop an image that was shot at 200mm so that it gave you the same frame as a 270mm shot, and the L lens would provide a better quality image, even cropped. The 18-270 is an f/6.3 on the long end, which will give you 1 1/3 less stops of light, or double + 1/3, meaning the possible difference between a shot that is sharp and one that is blurred due to motion, etc.

 

[jwsciontc]

how much do those teleconverters go for? like the 1.5x, 2x add ons? like 250ish?

 

[Overread]

Re amazon
Canon 1.4 teleconverter is around $265
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Canon-1-4X-Extender-Telephoto-Accessory/dp/B00009R6WL/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1225319118&sr=1-4[/ame]

whilst there is also a 3rdparty sigma teleconveter which will fit which will deliver almost the same optial quality as the canon - the downside is that its not weathersealed, but neither is your camera body - so its only a consideration if you are building towards a fullly weathersealed unit.
the sigma is around: $182
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Teleconverter-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000CD8BGU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1225319131&sr=1-1[/ame]

 

[chylld]

anyone have imput on the tamron 18-270

i have the 18-270 and it's great yet to see any CA or significant distortion.

here are 2 shots at 270mm of a kookaburra in my backyard (first one is slightly cropped) :