I am in need of a longer lens. Currently the longest I have is 200mm. I have been trying to decide between the Canon 70-300 IS and the new Tamron 28-300 VC, both of which are in the $600 range, which is a little steep for me. However in this month's issue of Outdoor Photographer, there is a 2 paragraph review of the Tamron AF 70-300 Di LD Macro 1:2 by pro photographer James Shadle, who says he uses this lens frequently. I researched this lens online and found it for less than $200. At first I thought this couldn't be the one he's recommending, but upon searching several websites, it seems that it is, although I'm still not 100% sure.
So, to get to the point, is there anyone who can help me here? Should I stick with one of the $600 lenses, or is this under $200 lens going to be the one I need? Or, have I found the wrong lens online? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Outdoor Photographer Forums
Discuss locations, technique and equipment with others who are passionate about photography in the great outdoors
Lens recommendations again
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Lens recommendations again
by bigdarfan » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:35 pm
- bigdarfan
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:03 pm
- Location: Cedar City, UT
by gldiana » Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:41 pm
Hi,
I have owned the very same Tamron: it's cheap. I actually paid $168 including shipping. It works well if there is a lot of light but as soon as the light drops you will get large amount of noise and chromatic aberration. The autofocus is very slow. Well, you get what you pay for. At that price you cannot rival in terms of quality with more expensive lenses. Get it if you want something to play with it, but don't expect print quality unless you shoot on a very bright day.
I have owned it for around 18 months and played a lot with it, then sold it on eBay in Italy and made up for the full amount (plus $10). I guess it's harder to find there.
What 200mm lens do you have? Because if it's a Canon 70-200 L 2.8 then you're better off with a 2X converter and you'll still have better quality than the Tamron.
I have owned the very same Tamron: it's cheap. I actually paid $168 including shipping. It works well if there is a lot of light but as soon as the light drops you will get large amount of noise and chromatic aberration. The autofocus is very slow. Well, you get what you pay for. At that price you cannot rival in terms of quality with more expensive lenses. Get it if you want something to play with it, but don't expect print quality unless you shoot on a very bright day.
I have owned it for around 18 months and played a lot with it, then sold it on eBay in Italy and made up for the full amount (plus $10). I guess it's harder to find there.
What 200mm lens do you have? Because if it's a Canon 70-200 L 2.8 then you're better off with a 2X converter and you'll still have better quality than the Tamron.
Luca
----
Check my website and blog for discounts on HDR Software Photomatix and NikSoftware titles
http://www.lucadiana.com/
http://www.lucadiana.net/blog
http://www.facebook.com/lucadianaphotography
----
Check my website and blog for discounts on HDR Software Photomatix and NikSoftware titles
http://www.lucadiana.com/
http://www.lucadiana.net/blog
http://www.facebook.com/lucadianaphotography
- gldiana
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:18 am
- Location: Jackson Hole, Wyoming
by bigdarfan » Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:14 pm
Thanks for your input. I have the Tamron 18-200. I love it because it covers most situations and I hardly ever have to switch lenses. But I need something longer because it's not long enough to shoot the bald eagles in the tree. When I get too near the tree where they're staying, they get spooked and take off. I've gotten some pretty good shots of the birds flying, but they would have been so much better with that extra 100mm. I use a Canon 20D.
- bigdarfan
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:03 pm
- Location: Cedar City, UT
by bob_r » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:46 am
The Canon 70-300 IS is a terrific lens and I use it a lot for a walk-around/vacation lens. The image quality actually rivals the "L"s and I can highly recommend it. It doesn't focus as fast as an "L" and the front element rotates, so it's difficult to use with a CPL, but it's still a bargain.
After saying that, I'm not sure this is the best lens for birding. 300mm is on the short side for birding. I have captured birds in flight with this lens, but as I said above, it's not the fastest at AF.
Here are a couple of sample shots taken with one:
Bob R
After saying that, I'm not sure this is the best lens for birding. 300mm is on the short side for birding. I have captured birds in flight with this lens, but as I said above, it's not the fastest at AF.
Here are a couple of sample shots taken with one:
Bob R
- bob_r
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:12 pm
by bigdarfan » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:52 pm
Wow Bob, those are great shots. I assume none of those is a self portrait. I know I would rather have a longer lens for shooting bald eagles, but as it is I'll be lucky to afford a 300mm. Still haven't decided which one. I think the Tamron doesn't rotate when you zoom, so that's a consideration. Where did you get your bald eagle shot?
- bigdarfan
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:03 pm
- Location: Cedar City, UT
by bob_r » Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:20 pm
These were all taken at the Memphis zoo. If you look closely at the eagles shot, you'll see the outline of the horrible chain link fence in front of the trees (green blurry area). It's hard to get decent shots through it.
One of the nice things about this lens is the IS. I get a lot of keepers because of it. Even though this lens has a few faults, I still think it's a bargain. It's a wonderful lens to carry when I don't want to carry the 100-400. It may not be quite as good as the 100-400, but I'm not sure the difference in quality is as great as the difference in price.
One of the nice things about this lens is the IS. I get a lot of keepers because of it. Even though this lens has a few faults, I still think it's a bargain. It's a wonderful lens to carry when I don't want to carry the 100-400. It may not be quite as good as the 100-400, but I'm not sure the difference in quality is as great as the difference in price.
- bob_r
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:12 pm
by Walczak Photo » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:15 am
Ohh....I just gotta jump in on this one!
bigdarfan...
I have the Tamron 70-300 LD and for the price it is, in my ever so humble opinion, one of, it not the best lens in this price range. I got mine used on Ebay for $90 and it's really worth several times that. My only gripes about this lens are that at f/4-5.6 it is a slower lens (obviously) and it is also a slow focusing lens. Also because I shoot hand held so much, I wish it were image stabilized as well. On the other hand as I've said many times before, if this lens were an F/2.8 "VC" (vibration control) and had faster focusing, I'm sure it would be over a $1000. The sharpness of this lens though is fantastic even at several times the price.
Here's some examples shot with the 70-300mm with my Canon Rebel XT...
As you can see, this -IS- a sharp lens. Several of these pictures were taken in lower light situations too (shade or overcast days) so even the speed of the lens isn't that big of a deal in many cases.
Now with that said, as Luca mentioned these lenses are rather slow at focusing. It seems to be a hallmark of Tamron lenses in general. However, I've played with the Canon 70-300 IS and it doesn't focus that much faster than the Tamrons. In fact I thought the focus speed was pretty similar. The Canon lens is quieter, but it still focuses rather slowly and does tend to search in low light.
I do however disagree with Luca about the print quality that you can get from the Tamron lens. -ALL- of the shots above have been printed as 8x10's and the prints are as good as you see here and again I'm sure compare with that from the $550 Canon lens.
This next shot was taken really close to sunset in heavily shaded woods...in other words, it was fairly dark outside and I did have to have the ISO on the Rebel cranked up to 800. As such, the shot did get rather grainy, but that was from the ISO of the camera and not the lens. The shot did require a good deal of noise reduction in Photoshop but again as you can see, it's not a bad shot and the quality is certainly decent all things considered (and again this made a pretty nice 8x10 print)...
Had I of been using something like a Canon f/2.8, I'm sure I wouldn't have had to do nearly as much clean up on the shot. Of course the same could be said of the camera as well...had I of been using something like a 5D or one of the better full frame sensor cameras with an ISO that will shoot in total darkness, the noise probably wouldn't have been an issue either. But again here, we're talking about a significant price difference. In the case of the lenses, we're talking about a $1000+ lens versus a $90 lens and for the that kind of price difference...well, you can decide for yourself.
Very simply, as with so many things in photography, this really comes down to compromise. For people who can drop a couple of grand on good glass, I would certainly recommend getting those "L" lenses all the way around...they're sharp, fast focusing and do great in low light (which is why they are "pro" lenses), but I get the impression that you are in the same boat as I am where $600 can simply be a HUGE investment. Unfortunately in this price range you don't have nearly as many choices and very often you have to learn to just deal with it and do the best you can.
Now to compare the lenses you've mentioned... This again is strictly my ever so humble opinion, but barring the issue of the Image Stablization on the Canon lens, I really do believe that you are going to get very similar quality as far as your images go from either the Canon 70-300mm or the Tamron 70-300mm. They are both quite comparable in regards to sharpness. -IF- they were both the same price, I'd go with the Canon simply because it is image stabilized...for shooting hand held, IS is a real plus to say the least. But between just these two lenses even new, you'll have to ask yourself is that Canon IS really worth the extra $300...and only you can decide that. The image quality is very similar, but the IS is going to give you a sizable advantage.
Now lets talk about that Tamron 28-300 VC. While I haven't used one of these personally yet, I've been reading the reviews also and they are getting -very- hi marks when it comes to image quality. Also Tamron is the ONLY company right now doing 3 axis image stabilization...even those pricey Canon L lenses only use 2 axis stabilization. In fact the only negative comment that I've seen consistently is that like most Tamron lenses, they focus rather slowly (go figure). So between the Tamron 28-300 VC and the 70-300, you'll have to ask yourself is that image stabilization really worth the extra $300. However between the Canon 70-300 IS and the Tamron 28-300 VC...you're talking more focal length/zoom -AND- better image stabilization at roughly the same price. And based on my other Tamron lenses as well as the reviews and Tamron's reputation in general, I'm sure the image quality is again going to be very comparable if not better than the Canon. Ya don't really need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out! LOL!
Now one last thing I would like very much to add here. Please understand that this isn't aimed at any person in particular and I certainly don't mean any offense towards anyone but please remember that there are a lot of people who I believe are a little obsessive about "brand name" when it comes to lenses. At one time it was true that a Canon or Nikkor lens would outperform a comparable after market lens such as Sigma or Tamron, but that's simply not true any more. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina all make some truly great lenses now that are as good as, if not better lenses than their brand name counter parts when it comes to image quality. Further more, I don't think a lot of people really take the price difference in to consideration. Yes, a $1500 Canon L lens is going to focus faster than a $150 Tamron or Sigma lens...but that should be a given. That $550 Canon 70-300 doesn't really focus that much faster than a Tamron...maybe it's a bit quieter, but it's not really much faster at all (at least not the one I was playing with at Circuit City!). -Any- lens in this price range is going to have a tendency to "search" in low light situations...tis the nature of the beast in this price range. However when you actually compare apples to apples here, you'll see there isn't really too much of a difference when it comes to quality and when it comes to price, Tamron and Sigma blow Canon and Nikon away every time.
I think it's all a matter of perspective really. If you want a lens that performs like a $1500 lens, than buy a $1500 lens...it's as simple as that. In the price range that we're talking about though, while I hate to be the odd man out (well...not really) for the price difference, I'll take the Tamron every time. To be honest, the primary reason that I've personally even considered the Canon L lenses is simply because Tamron doesn't make something in these focal lengths that is a fast focusing f/2.8 IS. If they did, I'm sure the lenses would probably be at least a few hundred cheaper than Canon (or Nikon) and that that's probably what I would choose.
Lastly, I have to agree with Bob...regardless of Canon vs. Tamron, etc., a 300mm lens is still going to limit you to a large degree with birding. Unfortunately, there are no easy (or cost effective) compromises here. You can get something like a 2x converter, but with these slower lenses, you're going to have even more of an issue with light and focusing. I have a 1.7x converter and while it can do a decent job, it's a real muther to use with my 70-300mm. The other option is to start looking at the really expensive lenses. The cheapest (that I've seen) is the Canon 100-400mm (which may still be on the short side for you) for around $1500 and from there the sky is the limit when it comes to price ($6000-$10,000 in some cases). Of course, you could also just do what Bob and I do and just get closer to your subjects by shooting them at zoos and nature centers
.
Alrighty...I hope that helps! If you're considering that Tamron 70-300mm (or the 28-300mm VC) and you don't mind the exceptions and addendum's in the fine print as it were, look at my pictures....as they say, the proof is in the pudding. You can do a lot with that 70-300mm if you're willing to work with it a little and understand it's short comings.
Peace,
Jim
(...ya know, I'm starting to think the folks at Tamron should really start compensating me for all these endorsements! LOL!!!)
bigdarfan...
I have the Tamron 70-300 LD and for the price it is, in my ever so humble opinion, one of, it not the best lens in this price range. I got mine used on Ebay for $90 and it's really worth several times that. My only gripes about this lens are that at f/4-5.6 it is a slower lens (obviously) and it is also a slow focusing lens. Also because I shoot hand held so much, I wish it were image stabilized as well. On the other hand as I've said many times before, if this lens were an F/2.8 "VC" (vibration control) and had faster focusing, I'm sure it would be over a $1000. The sharpness of this lens though is fantastic even at several times the price.
Here's some examples shot with the 70-300mm with my Canon Rebel XT...
As you can see, this -IS- a sharp lens. Several of these pictures were taken in lower light situations too (shade or overcast days) so even the speed of the lens isn't that big of a deal in many cases.
Now with that said, as Luca mentioned these lenses are rather slow at focusing. It seems to be a hallmark of Tamron lenses in general. However, I've played with the Canon 70-300 IS and it doesn't focus that much faster than the Tamrons. In fact I thought the focus speed was pretty similar. The Canon lens is quieter, but it still focuses rather slowly and does tend to search in low light.
I do however disagree with Luca about the print quality that you can get from the Tamron lens. -ALL- of the shots above have been printed as 8x10's and the prints are as good as you see here and again I'm sure compare with that from the $550 Canon lens.
This next shot was taken really close to sunset in heavily shaded woods...in other words, it was fairly dark outside and I did have to have the ISO on the Rebel cranked up to 800. As such, the shot did get rather grainy, but that was from the ISO of the camera and not the lens. The shot did require a good deal of noise reduction in Photoshop but again as you can see, it's not a bad shot and the quality is certainly decent all things considered (and again this made a pretty nice 8x10 print)...
Had I of been using something like a Canon f/2.8, I'm sure I wouldn't have had to do nearly as much clean up on the shot. Of course the same could be said of the camera as well...had I of been using something like a 5D or one of the better full frame sensor cameras with an ISO that will shoot in total darkness, the noise probably wouldn't have been an issue either. But again here, we're talking about a significant price difference. In the case of the lenses, we're talking about a $1000+ lens versus a $90 lens and for the that kind of price difference...well, you can decide for yourself.
Very simply, as with so many things in photography, this really comes down to compromise. For people who can drop a couple of grand on good glass, I would certainly recommend getting those "L" lenses all the way around...they're sharp, fast focusing and do great in low light (which is why they are "pro" lenses), but I get the impression that you are in the same boat as I am where $600 can simply be a HUGE investment. Unfortunately in this price range you don't have nearly as many choices and very often you have to learn to just deal with it and do the best you can.
Now to compare the lenses you've mentioned... This again is strictly my ever so humble opinion, but barring the issue of the Image Stablization on the Canon lens, I really do believe that you are going to get very similar quality as far as your images go from either the Canon 70-300mm or the Tamron 70-300mm. They are both quite comparable in regards to sharpness. -IF- they were both the same price, I'd go with the Canon simply because it is image stabilized...for shooting hand held, IS is a real plus to say the least. But between just these two lenses even new, you'll have to ask yourself is that Canon IS really worth the extra $300...and only you can decide that. The image quality is very similar, but the IS is going to give you a sizable advantage.
Now lets talk about that Tamron 28-300 VC. While I haven't used one of these personally yet, I've been reading the reviews also and they are getting -very- hi marks when it comes to image quality. Also Tamron is the ONLY company right now doing 3 axis image stabilization...even those pricey Canon L lenses only use 2 axis stabilization. In fact the only negative comment that I've seen consistently is that like most Tamron lenses, they focus rather slowly (go figure). So between the Tamron 28-300 VC and the 70-300, you'll have to ask yourself is that image stabilization really worth the extra $300. However between the Canon 70-300 IS and the Tamron 28-300 VC...you're talking more focal length/zoom -AND- better image stabilization at roughly the same price. And based on my other Tamron lenses as well as the reviews and Tamron's reputation in general, I'm sure the image quality is again going to be very comparable if not better than the Canon. Ya don't really need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out! LOL!
Now one last thing I would like very much to add here. Please understand that this isn't aimed at any person in particular and I certainly don't mean any offense towards anyone but please remember that there are a lot of people who I believe are a little obsessive about "brand name" when it comes to lenses. At one time it was true that a Canon or Nikkor lens would outperform a comparable after market lens such as Sigma or Tamron, but that's simply not true any more. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina all make some truly great lenses now that are as good as, if not better lenses than their brand name counter parts when it comes to image quality. Further more, I don't think a lot of people really take the price difference in to consideration. Yes, a $1500 Canon L lens is going to focus faster than a $150 Tamron or Sigma lens...but that should be a given. That $550 Canon 70-300 doesn't really focus that much faster than a Tamron...maybe it's a bit quieter, but it's not really much faster at all (at least not the one I was playing with at Circuit City!). -Any- lens in this price range is going to have a tendency to "search" in low light situations...tis the nature of the beast in this price range. However when you actually compare apples to apples here, you'll see there isn't really too much of a difference when it comes to quality and when it comes to price, Tamron and Sigma blow Canon and Nikon away every time.
I think it's all a matter of perspective really. If you want a lens that performs like a $1500 lens, than buy a $1500 lens...it's as simple as that. In the price range that we're talking about though, while I hate to be the odd man out (well...not really) for the price difference, I'll take the Tamron every time. To be honest, the primary reason that I've personally even considered the Canon L lenses is simply because Tamron doesn't make something in these focal lengths that is a fast focusing f/2.8 IS. If they did, I'm sure the lenses would probably be at least a few hundred cheaper than Canon (or Nikon) and that that's probably what I would choose.
Lastly, I have to agree with Bob...regardless of Canon vs. Tamron, etc., a 300mm lens is still going to limit you to a large degree with birding. Unfortunately, there are no easy (or cost effective) compromises here. You can get something like a 2x converter, but with these slower lenses, you're going to have even more of an issue with light and focusing. I have a 1.7x converter and while it can do a decent job, it's a real muther to use with my 70-300mm. The other option is to start looking at the really expensive lenses. The cheapest (that I've seen) is the Canon 100-400mm (which may still be on the short side for you) for around $1500 and from there the sky is the limit when it comes to price ($6000-$10,000 in some cases). Of course, you could also just do what Bob and I do and just get closer to your subjects by shooting them at zoos and nature centers
.
Alrighty...I hope that helps! If you're considering that Tamron 70-300mm (or the 28-300mm VC) and you don't mind the exceptions and addendum's in the fine print as it were, look at my pictures....as they say, the proof is in the pudding. You can do a lot with that 70-300mm if you're willing to work with it a little and understand it's short comings.
Peace,
Jim
(...ya know, I'm starting to think the folks at Tamron should really start compensating me for all these endorsements! LOL!!!)
- Walczak Photo
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:48 pm
- Location: Northern Ohio
by bigdarfan » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:43 am
Bob and Jim,
Thanks alot for all your help. Bob, your eagle shot is perfect, I certainly cannot tell from looking that it is a zoo photo, and especially the lighting is superb. And Jim, thanks so much for your long winded...er...I mean detailed recommendation. It has helped me alot, and I think I'm going to go with your recommendation and get the Tamron 70-300. I would surely love to have the IS or VC lens, but the dollar consideration is a big thing for me. Besides, I've gone my whole life without those things, so it's not like I'm losing anything. I see that amazon has the 70-300 for $139, dirt cheap, and the 28-300 is $595, quite a difference. So thanks for helping me make the decision.
I love all the photos from both of you. I live in a small town in Southern Utah, and there is no zoo for hundreds of miles, so I have to get it where I can (as governor Spitzer might say). The bald eagles migrate through here every year late January to early March or so. There are certain trees where they always go, so at that time of year you're pretty much certain to see some of them. The tree that I usually go to is off in a field and I have to climb over a barbed wire fence to get near enough for a semi-decent shot, but it's still never close enough. And when you get too close to them, well, they get scared and take off. Anyway, I think the additional 100mm will at least help a little. I got a couple of fairly good shots this year, but still.....
Anyway, thanks again. I would send the photos, but I don't know how you guys do that. They're not that great anyway.
Paul (bigdarfan)
Thanks alot for all your help. Bob, your eagle shot is perfect, I certainly cannot tell from looking that it is a zoo photo, and especially the lighting is superb. And Jim, thanks so much for your long winded...er...I mean detailed recommendation. It has helped me alot, and I think I'm going to go with your recommendation and get the Tamron 70-300. I would surely love to have the IS or VC lens, but the dollar consideration is a big thing for me. Besides, I've gone my whole life without those things, so it's not like I'm losing anything. I see that amazon has the 70-300 for $139, dirt cheap, and the 28-300 is $595, quite a difference. So thanks for helping me make the decision.
I love all the photos from both of you. I live in a small town in Southern Utah, and there is no zoo for hundreds of miles, so I have to get it where I can (as governor Spitzer might say). The bald eagles migrate through here every year late January to early March or so. There are certain trees where they always go, so at that time of year you're pretty much certain to see some of them. The tree that I usually go to is off in a field and I have to climb over a barbed wire fence to get near enough for a semi-decent shot, but it's still never close enough. And when you get too close to them, well, they get scared and take off. Anyway, I think the additional 100mm will at least help a little. I got a couple of fairly good shots this year, but still.....
Anyway, thanks again. I would send the photos, but I don't know how you guys do that. They're not that great anyway.
Paul (bigdarfan)
- bigdarfan
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:03 pm
- Location: Cedar City, UT
by Southern Wolf » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:48 pm
I also shoot with the Tamron 70/300... It is a great little lens and I am happy with it. I have printed many 8x10 photos from my Nikon D80 and Tamron 70/300 lens. Another thing to consider... the Tamron 70/300 will focus down to 3 foot (in macro) at the 300mm range... most 300mm lenses will not focus that close without tubes. AF may be a bit slow... but alot of what I shoot is manual focus anyway. I am trying to train myself to shoot full Manual.
I am looking at the Tamron 28/300 VC when it comes out for the Nikon... but only for the closer focusing and it would mean me packing around 1 lens instead of 2. I do alot of hiking with my gear... and if I can shed some weight it is well worth it... especially since Im lugging around a Sigma 50/500.
I am looking at the Tamron 28/300 VC when it comes out for the Nikon... but only for the closer focusing and it would mean me packing around 1 lens instead of 2. I do alot of hiking with my gear... and if I can shed some weight it is well worth it... especially since Im lugging around a Sigma 50/500.
"There is a fine line between a hobby and a mental illness!"
- Southern Wolf
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 pm
- Location: Eastern Arkansas
by bigdarfan » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:29 pm
Thanks again everybody for your input and recommendations. I went ahead and ordered the Tamron 70-300 today on Amazon, and you are not going to believe the deal I got. First of all, it was on sale for $125, then I had a $25 coupon Amazon sent me last week, so I got the lens for $100, plus $7.50 shipment. Can you believe this deal? I still can't believe I bought a lens for a hundred bucks. I guess I saved myself over $400 against the other lenses I was considering. Thanks again.
- bigdarfan
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:03 pm
- Location: Cedar City, UT
by Walczak Photo » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:04 pm
you are not going to believe the deal I got. First of all, it was on sale for $125, then I had a $25 coupon Amazon sent me last week, so I got the lens for $100, plus $7.50 shipment. Can you believe this deal? I still can't believe I bought a lens for a hundred bucks.
I believe it. I got mine used on Ebay for only $90 -and- it included a Hoya skylight filter to boot!
.
Once you get the swing of using a long zoom, I'm sure you'll be quite happy with it...just remember to keep your tripod with you!
Peace,
Jim
- Walczak Photo
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:48 pm
- Location: Northern Ohio
by Tom B. » Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:59 pm
Great advise everyone...And, great pictures too! Last, I have the Tamron 18-250 F3.5 -6.3 LD ASPH Macro, and I love it! It is very versatile for many different shots...The 250 is light for long range shooting, but over-all is it a good main lense..As for prints, I think the prints at 8x10 are very good....I too wish that Tamron would expand their offerings and still keep the price in check...
Good Luck!
Tom B.
Good Luck!
Tom B.
Take Pictures - Share the Fun
- Tom B.
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:49 pm
- Location: Northern Indiana
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests