Which lens will take a better picture?

[J.Bat]

Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6

or

Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6

 

[Crosby]

Um, is this a trick question? Are you asking about quality of the lenses? I don't know which is better quality but assuming they are equal in quality, then it would depend on what you are taking a picture of. Would you need the 300mm or would the 200mm be fine?

Good question, just needs some more detail.

 

[J.Bat]

Well maybe for like a sporting event, wedding, or some nature.

 

[Crosby]

Well maybe for like a sporting event, wedding, or some nature.

I'm still new at this stuff too, but my opinion, based on your reply, I would get the 200mm since its more middle of the road with 55-200mm. But I would think you might want to get a wide angle lens for weddings like a 15-90mm. (Experienced people correct me if I am wrong)

If all you want is a camera with one lens for now and these were your two choices, I think the 200mm would be the better of the two.

 

[J.Bat]

well I have the basic 18-55 mm lens, I can also get a sigma 24-135 mm

 

[Crosby]

In that case, go for the 300mm.

 

[J.Bat]

Over the sigma 24-135 mm?

 

[Crosby]

"well I have the basic 18-55 mm lens, I can also get a sigma 24-135 mm"

Over the sigma 24-135 mm?

Ok, so you have the 18-55mm. That should be a good "all around" lens for weddings, snapshots of friends, landscapes, etc. The 300mm can get those sporting event shots from across the field (with in reason) and those nature and wildlife (assuming wildlife interests you) shots that are just too far away for the 200mm. Between the 200 & 300mm why not go for the 300?

I have a 300mm lens and I use it all the time. I use it on closeups to get that blurred background, also my kids are in the band and I use it when they are out on the field and I can't get real close.

With those two lens, that should give you a good overall coverage for zooming and creativness.

 

[J.Bat]

Ok thanks. I just don't know much about tamron.

 

[Crosby]

Me either, thats why I asked if this was a quality question.

 

[Village Idiot]

How much do you have to spend? Neither of those are great lenses. If you're doing wedding and portraiture, you'll want a faster lens.

Edit:
Keep this in mind. The general rule for a sharp shot is that your shutter speed should be no lower than the focal length you're shooting at. Both of those are 5.6 on the long end. You'll have to shoot with at least 1/200 for the first and 1/300 with the second. With an aperture of 5.6, you're going to be shooting at ISO 1600 with indoor conditions just to get a properly exposed shot. Daylight or extremely well lit conditions will be different of course...

 

[Sarah23]

How much do you have to spend? Neither of those are great lenses. If you're doing wedding and portraiture, you'll want a faster lens.

Edit:
Keep this in mind. The general rule for a sharp shot is that your shutter speed should be no lower than the focal length you're shooting at. Both of those are 5.6 on the long end. You'll have to shoot with at least 1/200 for the first and 1/300 with the second. With an aperture of 5.6, you're going to be shooting at ISO 1600 with indoor conditions just to get a properly exposed shot. Daylight or extremely well lit conditions will be different of course...

agreed....spend the extra $ and get a faster lens. It is worth it, especially if you will be doing weddings/indoor photography.

 

[JIP]

Didn't we already discus this?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117275

 

[J.Bat]

Anything you all might recommend?

 

[Village Idiot]

Anything you all might recommend?

A prime? to complement a not so fast zoom? Canon makes an 85mm f/1.8 that's like $300.

You're not going to get the words fast and zoom and quality to go together until you're ready to spend a lot of money....

Unfortunately, this hobby is super expensive sometimes.