Help with SLR Lense for Canon T3I

[luvtwotrvl]

Please help.

I am looking at purchasing the Canon T3I for our Alaskan Land Trip that I planned myself. I am stuck between two lenses. The first is the Sigma 28-300. The second one is the Tamron 18-270. The Tamron is much more expensive than the Sigma. Which lense is the best telephoto?

 

 

I am a newbie in the SLR market. I am ready for an upgrade. I am tied of the slow and burry pictures from the Point and Shot cameras. I have two Point and Shot cameras and I am now ready to upgrade!!!

 

Thanks for the help,

David

[zackiedawg]

Both lenses are decent all-rounders, but the Tamron here is a better lens in a slightly higher class than the 28-300...it's a travel ultrazoom. Sigma has a comparable lens to is, the 18-250mm of their own...which would be a more direct comparison. If looking for a good all-in-one travel zoom, I'd definitely recommend the Tamron 18-270, which is very capable, lovely lens throughout the range, and lighter and smaller than the Sigma 18-250mm. The other Sigma you mentioned would be something I might recommend if you're just looking for a cheaper basic zoom to get you by.

 

Assuredly many are going to tell you that using a travel ultrazoom for telephoto use is not the way to go, and dedicated telephoto lenses with shorter zoom ranges will be better optical quality for the longer focal lengths. They're not wrong - a good, solid zoom lens with a 70-200, or 100-300 range, with a faster max aperture like F2.8, or even a constant aperture throughout the zoom range, will definitely be the better overall telephoto - higher detail retention at max zoom, much faster aperture pulls in more light, etc. However, the question should be whether the all-in-one lens solution can still give good enough results for your needs, still easily exceed what you can do with a P&S camera, and make up for any minor loss in quality at particular focal lengths with tremendous versatility and portability. For me, the answer is yes - the travel ultrazooms are an excellent lens to have, either as a one-lens solution for folks not looking to dive deep into the pro photography pool, or even for enthusiasts who want to collect the very best lenses and become quite obsessed, but still want to have in their arsenal a go-to lens for travel or maximum portability needs when bringing a bag of lenses either isn't convenient or isn't advisable. I've had a Tamron-made 18-250mm ultrazoom for 3 1/2 years, and get a ton of use out of it, and this despite the fact that I also have a collection of 3 camera bodies and 18 lenses for all different kinds of specialist needs. I didn't choose the ultrazoom lens because I didn't want to spend on better lenses, or because I'd just be a P&Ser who never went any further...I chose it as a semi-pro photography nut who collects lenses and loves photography, but still wanted to have that one lens I could stick on when space was limited, lightweight was vital, but maximum lens versatility was still something I didn't want to lose, to shoot subjects from 8 inches away to 2 miles away.

 

If you can afford it, I'd recommend going with the 18-270 Tamron, or also considering the 18-250 Sigma. Both would be a very good one-lens solution giving you excellent flexibility in a light and portable package for a DSLR, and would still be great lenses to have in your system as you build a nice specialized lens collection, if you decide to go that route.

[awboater]

On the telephoto zoom end, there is not a significant difference between 270mm and 300mm; probably hardly noticeable. But on the short end, the difference between 18mm and 28mm is going to be much more noticeable.

 

So if I had to chose between the two, I think the 18~270mm would give slightly more favorable coverage than the 28-300mm lens; especially on the wide angle end.

 

It's always been my belief that until you get to a 2x difference, there is not a lot of significance between the two focal lengths. I learned that with my 70-300mm lens. If you take a photo at 100mm, 200mm, then 300mm, and compare them, there will be a significant difference between 100mm and 200mm, which by the way is a 2x change.

 

Between 200mm and 300mm it's only a 1.5x difference, and not nearly as noticeable.

 

Here is an example of what I mean:

 

 

100mm

 

 

200mm

 

 

300mm

 

See that the difference between 100mm and 200mm is significant, but between 200mm and 300mm is not nearly as much.

 

Why is this, since there is 100mm between each lens?

 

The answer is that from 100mm to 200mm there is a 2x difference, and between 200mm and 300mm its only 1.5x. So while the linear distance is the same, the optical distance is not.

 

Pretty interesting, eh? This is why I call photography "shooting in a 2x world".

 

For that reason, if you already had say a 70-200mm lens, it is perhaps not worth spending the money for a 70-300mm lens.

 

While I tend to favor the faster lenses, and I have a big, heavy 80-200mm f/2,8 lens, I don't take that lens with me on the ship. It is used for fast action and sports purposes.

 

I do own a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6 super-zoom just for cruising. I am willing to give up the faster lenses for cruises for portability. The 18-200mm lens is not perfect, and does have some distortion, but it's a compromise that is worth the portability. And since most of the photography is outside in the bright Caribbean, there is not that much of a low-light issue. And I usually pack a small 50mm f/1.8 for those times I might want a faster lens.

 

So if you compare the 18~270 vs 28~300, if you can visualize the difference between 270 and 300mm from the above photo, it is probably hardly noticeable. But the wide angle difference between 18 and 28mm is about 1.5x. While not 2x, it is still going to be more of a difference than at the telephoto end. Thus my statement that the 18~270 is going to give you a bit more range.

 

However, for super-zooms as a whole, it's my belief that distortion is a common issue. And the more zoom power, the more chance of lens distortion. Fact is no lens is perfect, and whether or not the distortion is bothersome to you - or even noticeable - is up to you.

 

For comparison, the Tamron is around 15x, while the Sigma is closer to 12x. My Nikon 18-200mm is 11x, so it is on the low end of the super-zooms. For me, the Nikon's distortion is acceptable.

 

Have you also looked at the Tamron 18-200mm?

 

It is not as much of a zoom at 11x, but might be an alternative.

 

I have not mounted the two on my camera, so I cannot give you any direct comparison, but I know there are a few folks that do like the Tamron 18-270.

 

But again, the focal length difference between the Tamron 18~200mm and 18~270mm is not really that significant. And if the 18~200 has better image quality (which it not a given), to me, the 200 vs 270 difference is not that significant, so I would go with the one with the better image quality. And there is a huge difference in price between the two, as it looks the 18-270 is twice the price. For me, after trying both lenses at a camera shop, I'd likely pick the 18-200mm, as that extra 70mm doesn't seem to me to be worth $300; although there may be other advantages with the 18-270mm, such as image stabilization, etc. I am just looking at from a focal length perspective.

 

By the way, is the Sigma lens discontinued?

 

Anyway, that is my opinion, and it should at least give you some ideas of what is the best for you.

[chipmaster]

18-270 Tamron, 28mm as a starting wide is not wide enough on a crop sensor. The few dollars will not be worth the frustration in shooting wideframe of view.

 

The 30mm on the long side is nothing materially in FOV.

[luvtwotrvl]

Thank you for the information!!!! Helped out a lot.

 

David