Tamron Super Zoom.... or Super Zoom Compact?

MFlip

MFlip

Messages
332
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I've been considering either a Tamron 16-300 or 18-270 super zoom for use when travelling abroad, I know they’re not going to be as good as separate lenses but I’m trying to get an idea of just how good/bad they will be in terms of IQ. I guess this is a bit subjective but how do other people find them compared to say kit lenses?

I currently have a Canon 700D with 18-55 IS STM kit lens, Tamron 70-300mm VC and 50mm 1.4. (I’m not planning to get rid of these) The last time I went away I took all of the kit I’ve currently got, but found carrying around 3 lenses and stopping to change lenses a bit of a drag, especially in the heat. I was thinking of taking a superzoom along with the 50mm prime and possibly a Canon EF-S 24mm pancake lens for low light.

While I’m writing I’m now wondering if I’d be better spending my money on a super zoom compact and maybe an EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 or Tamron equivalent which will be more useful when not travelling. I’ve just found the Panasonic Lumix TZ60 which looks good and seems to allow control of aperture and shoots in RAW. I could take the DSLR and one lens and slip the compact in a pocket or just take compact and leave the DSLR in the hotel on some days.

Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated.
 
I've owned a Tamron 18-270 VC lens and for a budget lens it does give good results, obviously you are not going to get super sharp photos but paired with a 700D I would expect they will be better than what I acheived using one with a 450D.
As you are considering an EF-S 17-55 2.8, another Tamron lens certainly worth looking at is the 17-50 2.8 VC, again I have owned one of these as was well impressed with the quality of the photos.
There have been arguements as to whether the non VC vesion is sharper but when the VC version first came out, I along with others from here certainly loved it.
There is no doubt that the Canon 17-55 2.8 is a fantastic lens and many compare the quality of the images to those taken with L lenses and it's certainly a much better price now that it was a few years ago (that was the reason I went for the Tamron 17-50 2.8).

Just some food for thought for you :)
 
I had a Tamron 18-270 for a while but my Nikon 1 series and FT-1 adaptor wouldn't play nicely with it so I chopped it in against a Nikkor 18-200 which does work. Some years ago I chopped in a pair of kit zooms against a Tamron 28-300 and regretted doing the swap almost straight away - the convenience was great but the IQ was rather lacking. Modern zooms are better but even now the 2 lens option gives better images. For convenience (read no lens swapping!) I now have a couple of bridge cameras which have massive FL ranges, albeit at a lower quality than the DSLRs give me. Can't get anywhere near the reach of the bridges with my lens line up though.
 
Thanks Darran, I've looked at the Tamron 17-50 VC but comments about it not being as sharp as the non VC version had put me off. The facts it's £200 cheaper (£300 cheaper from Digital Rev :jawdrop:) than the EF-S 17-55 makes it very appealing however. Rightly or wrongly, assuming there's a benefit, I have a tendency to normally go for the more expensive more capable option when there's a choice like this for fear of regretting not paying the extra. However that's a big difference in price in this case.
 
Thanks Nod, do you have any idea how a super zoom compact would compare to a DSLR and Super Zoom lens in terms of IQ? How do your bridge cameras compare to the DSLR when fitted with a super zoom? People say DSLR Super Zooms aren't that great but are they still significantly better than compacts or bridges. (I assume bridges are generally better than compacts)
 
MFlip said:
Thanks Darran, I've looked at the Tamron 17-50 VC but comments about it not being as sharp as the non VC version had put me off. The facts it's £200 cheaper (£300 cheaper from Digital Rev :jawdrop:) than the EF-S 17-55 makes it very appealing however. Rightly or wrongly, assuming there's a benefit, I have a tendency to normally go for the more expensive more capable option when there's a choice like this for fear of regretting not paying the extra. However that's a big difference in price in this case.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but back then lens prices went through the roof and the 17-55 2.8 was around £700 whereas today it's around £140 cheaper, I just couldn't justify paying that for a non L lens with a shorter focal range even if it is a 2.8 although many compare the image quality to that of L lenses.
I eventually moved onto a 24-105L IS, 70-200L IS (that was then sold in favour or a 100-400L IS) because once trying L glass there really is no going back.
Too be honest, if I were you I would get the 17-55 before even considering the Tamron 18-270 because once you see the IQ it produces, I very much doubt you will want to buy the 18-270.
 
Compacts and bridges have tiny sensors, and my experience super zooms tend to produce bleh feeling images, or more propensity too

My dads got the 18 270 and its decent
 
MFlip said:
Thanks Nod, do you have any idea how a super zoom compact would compare to a DSLR and Super Zoom lens in terms of IQ? How do your bridge cameras compare to the DSLR when fitted with a super zoom? People say DSLR Super Zooms aren't that great but are they still significantly better than compacts or bridges. (I assume bridges are generally better than compacts)
Click to expand...

Well, I have 2 bridge cameras that give me far more reach than any superzoom I've used on my current DSLRs - I have a Fuji HS30 which gives me an effective focal length of 720mm and a Panasonic of some sort which stretches to 1200mm (both in 35mm/FF equivalent focal lengths) while the longest lens I've used on my FF bodies was a Sigma 150-500. The bridges will both turn in shots that will print fairly happily to A4 at their longest zooms, to a similar quality as a similar crop from my old D700 (to get a similarly framed shot). BUT, at shorter focal lengths within my current lens line up (which stretches from 8mm up to 300mm), the DSLRs win hands down. Not had much of a play with my new D750 yet but from what I've seen so far from about a dozen play shots, it's what I've wanted as a decent upgrade from the D700. I do have the 18-200 but that's a Dx lens and I use it on a V1 with an adaptor to give me an effective focal length of 540mm (if my maths is right!) at a similar level of quality to the bridge cameras. I've also used my 70-300 on that body and have a few A3+ prints from that rig (and had a play with a mate's 600mm on a 1.4x teleconverter with very good results but that is NOT a cheap or zoom lens!) I also use a couple of compacts at "normal" focal lengths and they give very good results but are both 4x zooms giving EFLs of about 25-100mm so not superzooms.

Personally, given your current 2 lens system, I would stick with them rather than a superzoom and a couple of primes, OR just a superzoom and no primes if you want to travel light. If you want or need the huge reach that a superzoom bridge will give you, that's the obvious solution since long SLR zooms aren't cheap or light (or that long compared to the superzooms on bridges.)
 
Thanks all,

I'm edging towards the 17-55mm and a super zoom compact at this point. That way I'm pretty sure I'm going to be happy with the 17-55mm IQ wise and I won't have overly high expectations to be disappointed when using the compact.

The thought of paying close to £500 for the 16-300 Tamron for IQ that is just ok is putting me off. I can see why it's priced at that point but if I'm going to compromise I figure I might as well go a bit further and get a compact that I can keep with me more often.
 
View attachment 30500 View attachment 30501 View attachment 30502 OK, felt like playing so here are 3 shots, all pretty much identical crops from the centre of the frame, all at f/8 or close to it and at the maximum zoom level of the lens used. From top to bottom, Panny bridge, Nikon V1 with 70-300 VR @ 300mm, Nikon D750, 70-300 @ 300mm.
 
Last edited:
@MFlip what was the outcome from this?
I'm in a similar boat and looking at the superzoom lenses to put with old D5100.
I'm looking at the Sigma 18-200 up to the nikkor 18-300 and pretty much everything inbetween.
+£500 buys a lot of bridge camera I guess but dropping right down to the Sigma 18-200 OS or the Tamron 18-270 VC @ £219/£269 buys up to something like a
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ72.

I'd be interested in what you think and decided on
 
Hi Peter

I went for a Panasonic DMC-TZ60 in the end so a super zoom compact as opposed to a bridge.

In terms of IQ it wasn't quite what I hoped. Probably more to do with my expectations than the camera though.

However there were a few occasions where I was glad to have the compact. Watching a couple of people trying to get off a speed boat and walk down a floating jetty with a bag full of camera gear made me glad I'd left my DSLR in the hotel and just had the compact in my pocket. Similarly walking round in an unfamiliar city at night I felt happier not having a DSLR slung round my neck at points. In these cases I don't think a bridge would have been quite the same.

There were a couple of points where I was glad to have the compact and not just my phone. Firstly I'd rather risk handing over a £200 compact to a stranger for a snapshot than a £400-500 phone which is also my key access tool for email, phone and web. Secondly I don't think I'd have managed shots like this with my phone. Not an astounding shot perhaps but better IQ than I think I'd have achieved with my phone. (This was handheld/resting on a hand rail)

Bangkok Skyline by Night from Lebua Skybar by Mark Dolphin, on Flickr

I guess it depends on your focus when abroad. Is it a photographic tour, a break with your partner or friends, or somewhere in between?

A super zoom lens would be nice in addition to the compact but overall I'm happy I went for the compact over the super zoom lens. I don't think I'd personally have been as happy if I'd gone for a bridge although this would probably give better IQ than the compact and result in you having to carry a lot less kit on the plane if you find you're then happy to leave your DSLR at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top