Question about lense: 250 vs 270

[taminator]

Hello! I'm looking at buying a Tamron 18-270 wide angle zoom lense for my Canon EOS Rebel xti. But there's also an 18-250 that's about $230 cheaper. Is it really worth the extra money to get the 270? I have a 70-300 lense now along with a 19-35 wide angle and I'm tired of carrying 2 lenses and having to change them out.

I really don't want to lose much of the zoom b/c I love the 300. But when I played around with the lengths today it was hard to tell a huge difference going from 200 to 250 and to 300.

Hope this makes sense. I only use the camera on our vacations and to take lots of outdoor shots. Oh and I'm an extremely amateur photographer!

Thanks
Tammy

 

[den9]

id say check out the reviews, 99 percent of the time the more money the better the lens. id honestly stick with what you have and deal with the inconvenience.

 

[Fedaykin]

Need more details about minimum aperture, image stabilization, etc. Wide to telephoto zooms usually have drawbacks compared to dedicated wide angle zooms(such as yours) and telephoto zooms.

 

[taminator]

Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Asph. AF Macro Lens Tamron | 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Asph. AF | AFB003C-700

vs

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical IF Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital EOS Tamron | AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD | AF018C700 | B&H Photo



Hope this helps.

 

[Fedaykin]

Hmm, they both are very similar, and reviews on B&H seem equal for both. Try looking for professional reviews on both, that higher price price point has to come from somewhere. Sadly I'm not familiar with Tamron lenses. I'll look around. Only significant difference I saw was the 18-250 has a slightly shorter focusing distance.


Haha I fail. The difference is in the 18-270 having VC, Vibration Compensation. This would be worth it if you're gonna shoot say at 200mm at a shutter speed as slow or slower than 1/200th of a second, which at that focal length is considered to be the slowest speed you can shoot handheld. If you have and use a tripod though you can do without it. Having it is always good but the price difference is pretty huge. I'd go with the 18-250 and use a tripod for long shots, which you should do anyways. And even then you can get away with using a fast shutter speed and a steady hand to prevent blur.

 

[benhasajeep]

The 18-270 lens is the next generation (newer version) of the 18-250 lens. The 18-270 is of course a bit longer and does have the added benefit of VC (vibration compensation).

I have been kicking around buying the 18-270 since it was introduced. Obviously its a decent lens. But there are some drawbacks to a lens of this type (from any brand). Just the sheer range from 18-270 the lens has a lot to do. Basically its a jack-of-all lens versus a master of one lens. Compared to your 70-300 lens this will be on par quality wise. If it were me I would opt for spending more for the 18-270. The vibration compensation does work well. And will help take sharper pics as lighting fades away.

 

[Dao]

A comparison of the superzoom lenses (includes both Tamron lenses)

Juza Nature Photography

(note from the article: Real focal length of both lenses are 220mm and 230mm on the far side)

 

[taminator]

Thank y'all so much for the info. The Juza Nature Photography was extremely helpful. I'm still leaning toward the 270.

Thanks again!!