Two lenses or one?

[flyin-lowe]

As you can see in my signature I have an XS with an 18-55 IS kit lens and Canons cheapo 75-300 (both came with the camera new).

AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro; Tamron USA, Inc.

I saw this lens in a magazine on an airplane and I know it's not the highest quality lens made but I thought it would be better to have one lens that basically covers the entire range instead of switching back and forth between the two I have. Plus this has vibration control (I am assuming its Tamrons version of IS) and my 75-300 doesn't. I figured I could sell my two lenses and get a few hundred dollars to put towards this one or should I just keep the two that I have? I just do family type stuff right now and am not going to invest in high dollar lenses. Would the quality of this lens be better, the same, or worse then the two that I have now.
Thanks

 

[Josh220]

It's got good reviews:

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

 

[robertwsimpson]

Save your money and get better lenses. There's no sense in going from one OK lens to another OK one. Use what you have to learn on until you can afford the really good stuff.

On another note, basically, the less a lens zooms the better the photos will be. For example, prime lenses are generally the sharpest. Consumer grade lenses have the widest zoom rage, because that is more of a concern to an average photo enthusiast. The image quality is the sacrifice for a wider zoom range. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule (the 28-300mm and the 100-400mm pop into mind).

Just save your pennies and concentrate on learning how to use your current stuff to its absolute limits. Then, when you're ready, the new lenses will benefit you way more.

 

[fokker]

IMO it sounds like an ideal lens for you. I'm actually thinking of getting one myself for a travel lens.

The performance will in all likelihood be better than what you currently have (those kit lenses are pretty rubbish), and you get much more convenience and VC across the whole range.

 

[KmH]

"Two lenses or one?"

No.

Six lenses. 5 to cover up to 200 mm, and one to cover from there up.

 

[er111a]

^^^^^ what he said

 

[table1349]

Ok, a little lens primer and then you decide.

Prime lenses:
Pros: Sharp and fast. A top quality prime is always going to be sharper than a top quality zoom. Same for mid range and bottom range primes vs comparable zooms.

Cons: Not as flexible as a zoom in certain situations when the photographer can not move around freely.

Zoom lenses:
Pros: A top quality zoom is usually going to be quite sharp. Zoom lenses allow for more flexibility when the photographer can not move around.

Cons: Not as fast as most primes. F2.8 is the fastest and the most expensive.

Super Zoom lenses:
Pros: Covers a wide range so less gear. Usually fairly inexpensive.

Cons: Image quality suffers. The closest thing Canon has in an L quality super zoom is the 100-400L. Usually slow glass, f4 to f5.6 generally. Usually lesser quality materials and construction.

The thing you need to understand about zoom lenses is that a zoom lens, even the best zoom lens is a compromise. To be able to have a zooming action you must have more elements and elements that move. That compromises image quality to some degree or another. In a top quality lens the compromise is less.

A second thing to understand. The greater the zoom range generally the greater the compromise. You are asking the lens to do a great deal more than s shorter focal length zoom or a prime.

You need to decide how much you want to compromise quality and image quality for convenience. Good luck.

 

[Tee]

I saw this lens in a magazine on an airplane and I know it's not the highest quality lens made but I thought it would be better to have one lens that basically covers the entire range instead of switching back and forth between the two I have. Plus this has vibration control (I am assuming its Tamrons version of IS) and my 75-300 doesn't. I figured I could sell my two lenses and get a few hundred dollars to put towards this one or should I just keep the two that I have? I just do family type stuff right now and am not going to invest in high dollar lenses. Would the quality of this lens be better, the same, or worse then the two that I have now.
Thanks

Before you buy, see if a Tamron workshop is coming near you (check their website). I just took their "11 Tips to Better Photos" and found the guest pro very interesting. Of course, they want you to buy some glass as well. I was able to test run the 18-270 that night. I found the Tamron lens to be far better than my kit 55-200. The VC (IS) was better, too.

I'm still on the fence. I like the idea of having an all purpose lens while out and about but I'm also planning on a camera upgrade and want great glass to go with it. If you can get to their workshop which are usually at the local stores, I highly recommend taking one out for a test drive. They'll have a bunch of lenses to test out.

 

[fokker]

The closest thing Canon has in an L quality super zoom is the 100-400L.

You're forgettig the 35-350mm L lens



I just wanted to point out that the OP has stated they are just doing family stuff and don't want to invest in expensive glass. Which is fair enough. So why would they want a bunch of primes or L glass? I think this lens is perfect for what they've described.

 

[table1349]

The closest thing Canon has in an L quality super zoom is the 100-400L.

You're forgettig the 35-350mm L lens



I just wanted to point out that the OP has stated they are just doing family stuff and don't want to invest in expensive glass. Which is fair enough. So why would they want a bunch of primes or L glass? I think this lens is perfect for what they've described.

Yes I did forget that lens. I have never shot one much less seen one in person.

My point however was even in consumer grade glass a couple or three lenses to cover the desired range, while not as convenient, will probably provide better IQ for the money spent than what 1 superzoom will provide.

 

[fokker]

You're probably right, but the fact is that sometimes convenience wins out over outright image quality. Also, just to throw opena can of worms, your two or cheaper lenses won't come with IS/VC.

 

[Seekwence]

I have the Nikon 18-55 and 55-200 (both with VR). I just got the Sigma 18-200 with OS and am keeping both original lenses, since I have already noticed that the Sigma is not as close at 200mm as the Nikon. Plus, I really really like the original 18-55mm kit lens...