Which Tamron Lens??

[BlueSkys]

I currently have a Canon Digital Rebel XT with the kit lens. I want to buy a new lens and I am looking at the Tamron 55-200 and the Tamron 70-300. I am interested in the pros and cons of these lenses, experience people have had with them, what kind of photos were taken with them and any other info that will help me decide what to get. I like to take landscape photographs and close up pictures of flowers and plants. Both of these lenses fall within my budget. I do not have much more than $200 to spend. I've also had people tell me I should buy a seperate lens for landscape and one for macro photography. While this would be the solution in the ideal world, I cannot afford to buy two lenses, nor do I want to at this point. Thanks for any help!

 

[Digital Matt]

Many people will tell you to avoid super zooms, and it's true. They sacrifice image quality in order to get that huge range. I would definitely say no to a 55-200. What lenses do you have now, and what exactly are you looking to photograph? A 50mm f/1.8 and a cheap set of extension tubes makes an awesome macro lens. I'm assuming you probably have the 18-55mm, which will work great for landscapes.

 

[rmh159]

So what would be a decent quality zoom lens? Would you sooner recommend a prime that's around 200 - 300 mm?

 

[BlueSkys]

Like I said in my original post, I like to shoot landscape and macro, specifically flowers. I do have the 18-55mm, but many times when I'm shooting landscape it does not zoom in as far as I would like. I like to zoom in so that I can frame my pictures and reduce clutter. My landscapes are not always the wide views that you so often see.

Buying a 50mm and extension tubes would probably put me out of my price range. I'm looking for a lens with a longer focal range so that I don't have to have a lot of lenses with me. I like to take pictures while hiking, so I don't want to have a lot of equipment. I'd rather just have one or two lenses with me that can work for any subject.

I know people are trying to be helpful by suggesting other equipment, but these suggestions do not always help me. They just make the selection process even harder. I've narrowed down my choices to two lenses that I feel will benefit me the most.

 

[fmw]

I don't mean to be difficult but the purpose of zoom lenses is not to frame the subject. It is to change the visual perspective of the shot. Framing should be done with the feet.

If you like flower photography you will truly enjoy a real macro lens - a lens that will focus to a 1:1 reproduction ratio. I'll bet you could find one on Ebay used but nice for very little money - perhaps even a telephoto one.

Landscapes vary enough that you can shoot with nearly any focal length imaginable. The first one is shot with a 500mm lens (extreme telephoto) on a 35mm camera. The second one was shot with a 24mm (wide angle) on the same camera. The two shots were made within 20 miles of each other. Notice how things are foreshortened with the telephoto shot and stretched out with the wide angle. It is an extreme comparison but that's what I mean by perspective.

 

[BlueSkys]

I had seriously considered getting a macro lens, but then I saw the price. I'm not completely confident about getting one off of e-bay. I wouldn't mind it being used, but I would have a hard time trusting the seller over the internet. A lot of people seem to be totally against zoom lens. Why is this? Or was I too broad about the subjects I take pictures of so people think a zoom wouldn't match my interests. I like to take the big landscape pictures (which everyone keeps referring to), but I also like to take pictures of anything in nature... birds, animals, plants, flowers, waterfalls, streams, etc. I don't just take the scenic shots, it's hard to do that when you're in the middle of the forest.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Seriously, I think you should wait, save up a little money,

Tamron makes some wicked wide angle lenses, also you could get a 28-75 "pro" model of tamrons F2.8 prob 275.00 used.

It would allow you a lot of landscapes and also good zoom features. but for ultra wide you have to stick on your 18-55 and stop it down for good results.

If you get a good middle range lens then youve got the wide, and middle to slight zoom range covered.

eventually you'll want a 100mm prime or something like that.

see if you can play with them somewhere, or rent one for a week.

 

[fmw]

I had seriously considered getting a macro lens, but then I saw the price. I'm not completely confident about getting one off of e-bay. I wouldn't mind it being used, but I would have a hard time trusting the seller over the internet. A lot of people seem to be totally against zoom lens. Why is this? Or was I too broad about the subjects I take pictures of so people think a zoom wouldn't match my interests. I like to take the big landscape pictures (which everyone keeps referring to), but I also like to take pictures of anything in nature... birds, animals, plants, flowers, waterfalls, streams, etc. I don't just take the scenic shots, it's hard to do that when you're in the middle of the forest.

Some very reliable companies do business on ebay. Cameta camera and Adorama are two that come to mind quickly. They describe the condition of what they sell accurately. They sell used lenses all the time on ebay.

Zoom lenses provide more flexibility because the focal length is variable. Fixed focal length lenses provide better image quality. Sometimes the differences are subtle and sometimes they are not.

 

[MACollum]

I have the Tamron 70-300mm lens and I like it well enough. Bear in mind, though, that if you zoom a lot a tripod may be needed or camera shake will be an issue. It's tempting to use the zoom to get in super close but every time I try it without a tripod, the pictures are fuzzy (and I'm frustrated that I can't be more still, LOL). In bright light and without much zoom, I've taken a few great pictures with it. I'm looking forward to spring when I can use it to take pictures of bees and such. The zoom factor will help me keep my distance plus it's got macro for detail. I got some fabulous shots of a butterfly (or moth, not sure which) the same day I got the lens. Unfortunately, I'll probably have little use for this lens until spring, though I have gotten some good, close up pictures of people. You can get in close to the face without getting IN their face

 

[THORHAMMER]

If you can save up a little longer yuo can snag a 17-55 2.8 mm pro level tamron for like 450.00

I was just reading about it today in a magazine, looks like a good lens, especially for what you like to shoot, landscapes.

 

[Alex_B]

Buying a 50mm and extension tubes would probably put me out of my price range.

well, the lens is one of the best value for money lenses made by canon ... not sure about the pricing of the tubes though.

I'm looking for a lens with a longer focal range so that I don't have to have a lot of lenses with me. I like to take pictures while hiking, so I don't want to have a lot of equipment. I'd rather just have one or two lenses with me that can work for any subject.

as for hiking, I do hiking sometimes with expedition-like gear on my back, and all my camera gear on my front side ... that is a pain of course, still I would not go without at least two (in my case rather heavy) lenses .. a third 1kg lens added to this soon.

I know people are trying to be helpful by suggesting other equipment, but these suggestions do not always help me. They just make the selection process even harder. I've narrowed down my choices to two lenses that I feel will benefit me the most.

well, and I will make things worse now: .. if you are on a budget, and want to travel light, but still enjoy macro photography ... consider a close up lens. You should go for the D-versions though, they are not as cheap as as the versions with only one lens, but they correct for the chromatic abberations better.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Tamron and sigma both make 18-200mm zooms that will fit on the EF mount. If you want to pack light while hiking, get one of those. Yes they're slow, Yes they have wierd barrel and pincusion distortion but one of my classmates uses the Tamron 18-200 and i've seen some good images off of it. It's super flexible, and you wouldn't be having to carry any other lenses. It could stay attached to your body 24/7 without having to interchange with something else becuase it covers the focal length of your kit lens.

 

[LaFoto]

As far as I know, my sister's using a Tamron 28-200mm lens, too, and she is not happy with the results in the longest focal range - and she got herself a new one because she thought it was because her first one had become "old" - but with a lens that covers a wide angle of 18mm and a "condensed" one at 200mm you may have too much flexibility in one lens only.

I use a 70-300mm telezoom with an inbuilt macro function and am quite happy with it, but mine's no Tamron. I won't say the brand name as not to confuse you any further.

But if it is a decision between the two lenses that you are naming in your first post, then I say 70-300 (and only because that is the range that I use ... but I have gone through stages where I fought with my two lenses, i.e. the kit lens and that telezoom one which I have when I suddenly needed a different focal length for the frame I had in mind). Therefore something might also speak in favour of the 55-200 lens ... which now does not make things ANY easier for you AGAIN...! Sorry.

Welcome to ThePhotoForum, all the same .