I'm not sure there is a set timeframe of restock on that lens. I bought mine used for 275, I believe.
[Sticky] Digital Camera FAQ
224,967 Views |
3079 Replies |
Last: 11 yr ago by Ag CPA
So I need a little advice (again).
I'm trying to decide which lens I want to go for next. I've currently got a D60 with the 18-55 VR. I'm trying to decide between the Nikon 70-300 VR or the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I think the Nikon would be better for my wildlife shots (especially when shooting across large valleys), but I also like going to auto races and shooting, which would make the Tamron seem the better choice. They're pretty similar in price from what I've seen, so it's just a matter of focal length versus aperture size. What do you guys think?
I'm trying to decide which lens I want to go for next. I've currently got a D60 with the 18-55 VR. I'm trying to decide between the Nikon 70-300 VR or the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I think the Nikon would be better for my wildlife shots (especially when shooting across large valleys), but I also like going to auto races and shooting, which would make the Tamron seem the better choice. They're pretty similar in price from what I've seen, so it's just a matter of focal length versus aperture size. What do you guys think?
I would get the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and the sigma 1.4x teleconverter.
quote:
I would get the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and the sigma 1.4x teleconverter.
I decided to go the same way but I haven't bought the converter yet.
Plus, for serious distance wildlife shooting, wouldn't you be looking more at a 100-400 or the bigma/50-500?
[This message has been edited by Mrs. 96CH53 (edited 7/31/2008 11:47a).]
Yes and yes.
'Soup: I thought the teleconverter increased the vignetting effect, or was I mistaken?
And I'd love to look at the bigger lenses, but sadly, they cost more money than I'll have in place over the next few months (meaning, by Xmas).
And I'd love to look at the bigger lenses, but sadly, they cost more money than I'll have in place over the next few months (meaning, by Xmas).
The main thing about the teleconverter as far as I know is that you lose a stop, but if you have 2.8 to begin with is it really that big of a deal?
Teleconverters reduce sharpness a bit, as well, I believe.
They do reduce sharpness some, but look at this.
http://thomascampbellphoto.com/IMG_9518.jpg
It is a full res macro shot.
Taken with my 150mm 2.8 macro lens with my 2X teleconverter. The 2X TCs are really known for sharpness dropoff. I think this pic looks pretty damn sharp.
Manually focused in my 40D using liveview.
http://thomascampbellphoto.com/IMG_9518.jpg
It is a full res macro shot.
Taken with my 150mm 2.8 macro lens with my 2X teleconverter. The 2X TCs are really known for sharpness dropoff. I think this pic looks pretty damn sharp.
Manually focused in my 40D using liveview.
Hmm, I stand corrected then. Do you need to use the same brand for both the lens and the teleconverter? Or can you use a Sigma teleconverter on a Tamron lens, for example (not saying I would want to, just curious)?
From the little I've read I will be buying a sigma teleconverter to go with my sigma lens.
ey do reduce sharpness and increase focus time.
get the tc for the lens you will use.
I have sigmatcs for my two simga lenses, the macro and the 300mm 2.8 prime.
get the tc for the lens you will use.
I have sigmatcs for my two simga lenses, the macro and the 300mm 2.8 prime.
The teleconverters are not always compatible. My Sigma TC will *not* fit on my Tamron 28-75.
I think it is actually the other way around most times. There are lenses that will not accept TCs.
It is generally accepted that TCs will work best with lenses that are from the same manufacturer as the TC. Try to stick with that. You usually won't have a bunch of lenses that you will want to use a TC with. I only use it with my macro and my long prime. I can't see any reason I would ever want to use it with anything else. TCs can be good for some use, but they aren't really the best idea for normal use.
While it's probably not a bad idea to match brands, what I was trying to get across was that some lenses will flat out not work with TCs.
Why? Because the rear most element of the lens will interfere with the glass in the TC. Most telephoto and macro lenses should work (even across brands) but don't expect mid range zooms (i.e. 24-70) to work with a TC. It's usually physically impossible from an optical standpoint.
Why? Because the rear most element of the lens will interfere with the glass in the TC. Most telephoto and macro lenses should work (even across brands) but don't expect mid range zooms (i.e. 24-70) to work with a TC. It's usually physically impossible from an optical standpoint.
Yeah, but I can't fathom a reason you would want to put a 1.4 or 2 on a 28-75 2.8. It isn't like a medium zoom at 5.6 is all that expensive.
I know you can't but that doesn't mean that it doesn't cross other people's minds...
I just ordered the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for my 40D. Unfortunately, it's back ordered.
I hate waiting. But I'm looking forward to getting this lens. I've read rave reviews about it.
http://www.adorama.com/TN1116EOS.html?searchinfo=Tokina%2011-16mm&item_no=1
[This message has been edited by Rex Racer (edited 8/6/2008 6:14p).]
I hate waiting. But I'm looking forward to getting this lens. I've read rave reviews about it.
http://www.adorama.com/TN1116EOS.html?searchinfo=Tokina%2011-16mm&item_no=1
[This message has been edited by Rex Racer (edited 8/6/2008 6:14p).]
rex please let me know how that lens works out... im looking for a wide angle.
Will do. I hope they get it in stock soon.
I want a wide angle.
I wish they had that one when I bought my Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6. I could do nasty, nasty stuff with a 11mm 2.8 lens.
I hand held this 1 second exposure in NYC at 13mm.
If I had the benefit of a 2.8 lens at 11mm. Wow.
I hand held this 1 second exposure in NYC at 13mm.
If I had the benefit of a 2.8 lens at 11mm. Wow.
Sell the Sigma and grab the Tokina!
I am thinking about it.
lensbabies
anyone played around with them?
anyone played around with them?
Can anyone recommend a lens with a wide range of focal lengths (28mm-250+mm)? Sigma and Tamron both have sub $500 lenses in this range; the reviews I have read are mixed.
I'd like to pick up a lightweight lens for traveling or hiking and other situations where I don't want to carry around multiple lenses but want the ability to shoot landscapes or wildlife.
Soup I noticed that you don't have this type of lens in your arsenal. Is there a specific reason for that, other than the fact that you have all those focal lengths covered with multiple 2.8 lenses?
I'd like to pick up a lightweight lens for traveling or hiking and other situations where I don't want to carry around multiple lenses but want the ability to shoot landscapes or wildlife.
Soup I noticed that you don't have this type of lens in your arsenal. Is there a specific reason for that, other than the fact that you have all those focal lengths covered with multiple 2.8 lenses?
Probably b/c most lenses that cover that focal distance are not that fast and generally considered to be consumer carry-all lenses.
What type of camera (cannon, nikon, ??)
What type of camera (cannon, nikon, ??)
the longer the zoom range, the crappier the lens, with few exceptions.
It is pretty much impossible to make a lens that goes from wide angle (28mm) to telephoto and have it be sharp throughout.
To make a lens like that light, it would have to be very slow (doesn't let much light in.) Most are poor quality, focus slowly, have small apertures and not at all sharp.
I prefer all my lenses to be 2.8 or faster.
I'd rather have less zoom range in a higher quality lens than more zoom range in a craptastic lens like the Tamron 28-300.
A lot of people like the Nikon 18-200mm lens, but it isn't really sharp throughout and gets mixed reviews. Some love it, some don't. I'd rather carry a 28-75 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8.
The only long zoom ones I could really recommend are the:
Sigma 50-500 Bigma
Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L (still slow)
Canon 24-105 4L IS
Nikon 200-400
It is pretty much impossible to make a lens that goes from wide angle (28mm) to telephoto and have it be sharp throughout.
To make a lens like that light, it would have to be very slow (doesn't let much light in.) Most are poor quality, focus slowly, have small apertures and not at all sharp.
I prefer all my lenses to be 2.8 or faster.
I'd rather have less zoom range in a higher quality lens than more zoom range in a craptastic lens like the Tamron 28-300.
A lot of people like the Nikon 18-200mm lens, but it isn't really sharp throughout and gets mixed reviews. Some love it, some don't. I'd rather carry a 28-75 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8.
The only long zoom ones I could really recommend are the:
Sigma 50-500 Bigma
Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L (still slow)
Canon 24-105 4L IS
Nikon 200-400
Rebel XSI.
I'm a lowly consumer and am looking for a lens that I can put on and carry around all day, so this may be what I need even if it is not the fastest.
Soup, thanks for the explanation.
[This message has been edited by wessimo (edited 8/11/2008 9:28a).]
I'm a lowly consumer and am looking for a lens that I can put on and carry around all day, so this may be what I need even if it is not the fastest.
Soup, thanks for the explanation.
[This message has been edited by wessimo (edited 8/11/2008 9:28a).]
Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF) Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Anyone have any experience with this lens? Will it give me a lot wider perspective than my 28-75 tamron?
http://www.adorama.com/TM1735EOS.html?searchinfo=Tamron%20Autofocus%2017-35mm%20&item_no=3
Anyone have any experience with this lens? Will it give me a lot wider perspective than my 28-75 tamron?
http://www.adorama.com/TM1735EOS.html?searchinfo=Tamron%20Autofocus%2017-35mm%20&item_no=3
I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and love it.
http://www.adorama.com/TM1750EOS.html?searchinfo=tamron%2017-50&item_no=1
http://www.adorama.com/TM1750EOS.html?searchinfo=tamron%2017-50&item_no=1
Oh, and I think it is the newer version of the one you have that tries to carry the same zoom range on a crop sensor. (i.e. 17-50mm on crop = 28-75 on full frame, roughly).
Also, this may help give you an idea of what the differences are for different focal ranges.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
Also, this may help give you an idea of what the differences are for different focal ranges.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
I'm not willing to lug around or shell out the cash for one of those huge 2.8 zoom lenses so I guess I'm going to be stuck with a compact but slow lens in the neighborhood of 70-300mm/4-5.6.
Any recommendations? Or are they all about equally craptastic?
Any recommendations? Or are they all about equally craptastic?
Never really spent the time to research any of them. If you only care about the zoom range, the Tamron 28-300 has a huge usable range. My stepdad has it. Not really sure about the rest. That Tamron feels about the same as any other consumer lens to me.
Featured Stories
See All
Recruiting Rankings Update: Shifts in classes of 2027, 2028 & 2029
by Cade Draughon
1:31
3h ago
1.2k
Costly two-out damage sinks No. 18 Texas A&M in San Marcos
by Richard Zane
63:08
8h ago
1.7k
B-Team: Reviewing the Final Four, favorite college hoopers & more
by Ryan Brauninger
4:23
16h ago
2.5k