Anyone got a superzoom

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
I saw a really positive review for the Sigma 18-270 the other day and it made me wonder if it would be a superb walkabout lens

But I wonder did it get a good review against other superzooms only. Whats it like standing on it's own for IQ?

Would the 18-50 range rival my tamron 17-50 (obviously not the aperture as it isn't 2.8, but IQ)

how about the 70-270 range - as good as my 70-300 IS?
 
Not any more! Used to have said lens (think you meant theTamron not Sigma) and yes, the IQ was reasonably good but what really let it down was the slow focus speed..:bang:.terrible! In anything apart from bright daylight the lens will hunt for a good few seconds before it locks and if indoors its even worse. Got shot of mine and bought an 18-70 and a 70-300VR instead......miles better!
I have now learnt my lesson....
 
Hey Joe, Zooms are a compromise and superzooms even more so with issues such as focus, as mentioned, and Bokeh for example.

The 18-270 is, I think a Tamron, and a good travel lens, some of my clients have bought it along and it's impressive, but it means you are carrying a lot of bulk when shooting in the 18-70 range which we most often use.

I encourage people to zoom with their feet by fitting a nifty fifty or 35mm f1.8!

It's such a piy that the mechanical build of the 55-250 is so far behind it's optical quality.

Check out the review of the Tamron at dpreview.

All the best john
 
You mean the Tamron 18-270VC.
It is a very good lens and as I have said before, I've never understood the lack of appreciation it deserves.
Yes it does have it's faults but then so do all superzoom lenses.
I don't see how it possible to compare it to the 18-50 range of the Tamron 17-50 simply because it would comparing two different focal length lenses.
However, the Tamron 17-50VC f/2.8 did produce a better IQ when I compared the this range of both lenses.
I've only had a short play with a Canon 70-300IS but I think the Tamron is just as sharp from 70-270.
Would I buy one for use on a 7D?
No, I wouldn't, I owned one and used it on my 450D and 40D but when I upgraded to the 50D, I felt that L lenses would be the way forward and I accepted that I would need a couple of lenses to fill the range.
I already own a Canon 10-22 and I wasn't too fuss about loosing some wide angle length so I opted for the 24-105L IS and a 70-200L IS F4 and a 1.4x converter

The Tamron is good for people on a budget using a consumer body and who want a superzoom lens as a walkabout, but once you get to the likes of the 7D, this body would punish a consumer superzoom lens and you would certainly notice the flaws in the lens a lot more.
Until it is possible for Canon to produce an L superzoom with this kind of focal range, I believe when it comes to bodies like the 7D, they are best avoided.

Oh and as neilos100 has stated, the AF speed and VC are find with bright daylight (this is when I used mine the most) but heading towards dusk, then the AF would start hunting.
 
neilos100 said:
Got shot of mine and bought an 18-70 and a 70-300VR instead......miles better!
I have now learnt my lesson....
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, 2 lenses to cover the range rather than rely one 1 superzoom.
 
I've only had one superzoom, a Sigma 28-300mm and returned it as soon as I tried it. Slow to focus and really soft. Maybe the one you mention is better but the two lens combo will be a better solution anyway
 
I'd imagine that these newer super zooms would pretty decent performers and that their biggest drawback would be their relatively small maximum aperture.

I used to have a Siggy 28-300mm and it made a great day out and holiday lens but the image quality wasn't as good as the other lenses I've had but it wasn't exactly terrible either. I certainly seem to have had a better experience than the previous poster.

I'd imagine that a more up to date super zoom would make a good general purpose lens just like my 28-300mm did and that if you made allowances for it's shortcomings you'd be relatively happy. I wouldn't expect one to rival a quality shorter range zoom though for absolute image quality.
 
go and try one(you will be suprised) i had an 18-270mm tamron and traded it in as i thought there was something wrong with it and brought the nikon 18-200mm(image quality about the same and the af speed on the nikon is little faster but not much)turned out there was nothing wrong with the lens it was my fault.
one things for sure the vc in the tamron is much better than the vr in the nikon 18-200mm imo.
 
kmiragaya said:
I've only had one superzoom, a Sigma 28-300mm and returned it as soon as I tried it. Slow to focus and really soft. Maybe the one you mention is better but the two lens combo will be a better solution anyway
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on what the problem is though right? If the problem is that you don't want to change lenses for whatever reason, it's more that the superzoom will be the better solution at the cost of image quality perhaps
 
I'm in the process of trying to decide which of these to get to replace the 18-55 kit lens, I have some reasonable lenses already but my Dad has started to take an interest again and is using my 2nd camera more, Im not letting him loose witht he 70-200 or the 24-70 so he gets the kit lens but he moans he can't zoom in far enough.

I don't really want him swapping lenses, I have seen the inside of his old slr and his lenses not a good sight. So I was thinking a superzoom would be an option, image quality is going to be better than anything he has used receintly and I will never use it so its not that big an issue I had a play with a few of the sigma offerings but the guy was raveing on about a new 18-250mm they have on the way with OS so I think I may hold off and wait to get hands on with one of those? I usually only buy canon lenses but for my Dad I may make an exception.
 
joescrivens said:
I guess that depends on what the problem is though right? If the problem is that you don't want to change lenses for whatever reason, it's more that the superzoom will be the better solution at the cost of image quality perhaps
Click to expand...

I've just sold my 18-250 Tamron, mainly because I've changed systems and gone FF.

I had some excellent images from mine and it was my most used lens when travelling, one lens on the body all day, no missed shots trying to change lenses, and a fairly compact package too.

This is a crop from a handheld shot at 250mm


Click for bigger.

I'd even used it in conjunction with flash at f8 and above for work on the beach where conditions aren't ideal for swapping lenses but I've not needed low light performance.

So...

It's a very convenient lens package, it may lose out in low light performance, but you've got a wide range of focal lengths and often zooming with your feet isn't possible.
 
JasonRS said:
I've just sold my 18-250 Tamron, mainly because I've changed systems and gone FF.

I had some excellent images from mine and it was my most used lens when travelling, one lens on the body all day, no missed shots trying to change lenses, and a fairly compact package too.

I'd even used it in conjunction with flash at f8 and above for work on the beach where conditions aren't ideal for swapping lenses but I've not needed low light performance.

So...

It's a very convenient lens package, it may lose out in low light performance, but you've got a wide range of focal lengths and often zooming with your feet isn't possible.
Click to expand...

thanks for that, looks pretty good that example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top