Tamron 17-50 vs. Tamron 28-75: Any advice?
1272577
For a general walk-around lens on a crop camera like the Rebels or 40D, etc, I find that 28mm is just too limited in terms of wide angle. Not very good for shooting a room full of people either. 28mm isn't too bad if you're ONLY shooting people. My recommendation would be to go for the 17-50 and get an image stabilized telephoto for longer shots like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.
1584168
The advantages that the Tamron 17-50 has over Canon 18-55 are it is faster by one f stop, much sharper, build quality is much better. The Tamron is the clear winner & is a nice affordable upgrade. The Canon 55-250 is sharp mid to telephoto a better match with the tamron 17-55 because of the sharpness. All the lenses are for crop sensors and are fully compatible the all Canon Rebel camera bodies.
24768
I have both lenses and the real question is how close can you get? Both lenses are great, the Nikon is a little sharper and will focus a little faster on my 5200, but the reach of the Sigma is really nice. another option is the new Tamron 150 to 600 when you can get it with the Nikon mount. So if you can get close the Nikon, if you need more reach the Sigma or the Tamron!
811135
I don't have the Tamron 70-200 but I have the canon 70-200L f4, and I must say the 24-70 Tamron is not as sharp as the canon. Having said this, the Tamron is sharp enough for me and in anycase you need wide-tele lens for general photography as opposed to long telephoto zooms such as 70-200.
1786216
For the D50 and D90 I'm partial to the 28-200. Got three from Tamron and one from Sigma and all were under $100 on Ebay. They AF quickly and are razorsharp. Most were bought attached to a cheapo camera like an N60 or a N2020.
1668187
I really like my 16-300 mm Tamron and would recommend it to someone looking to purchase something in that range. That being said, I have never used an 18-270, but, my guess is that you can't get as close or as far with that lens as what I get. But the difference really isn't that much. If it were me and looking to to move up, I'd move up to the Nikon 80 - 400 mm lens. It has what I think is a better glass, and more range. However, you can get a Tamron 150 - 600 mm for about half the price of the mentioned Nikon.
1552615
Yes, the Tamron 28-300 will work on the 70D. The results might surprise you too. The lens is kinda soft on the 5D, but should take acceptable photos on the 70. Remember, it is not an 'L' glass lens and will NEVER be comparable to some of the higher end Canon lenses. You get what you pay for applies here, except you are not paying extra for the canon name.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
1491656
Absolutely. The 70-200 with a TC-2 isn't any better than the 70-300. I've owned both. The 80-400 is better than the 70-300 therefore better than the 70-200 with a tc. In good light its better than the 70-200 with a 1.4.
1276205
The IQ of the Tamron lens is typical of super-zooms, that is, a compromise at all focal lengths. The Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85 is generally well-regarded and is probably sharper over much or all of its range. I would recommend adding the Tamron to your kit for its unbeatable versatility but keep the Nikkor for its better optics.
895923
hi,there are some differences. the tamron has Image stabilization--has 17 Elementsalso tamron has3 LD (Low Dispersion) elements, 2 XR (Extra Refractive Index) elements, 3 glass molded aspheric elements , 1 hybrid aspherical elementspec and quality wise the tamron is better.
2058086
I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports... » Read More I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. « Show Less
2172966
I'd suggest buying OEM (Nikkor) since Tamron's build quality is lacking. The slightest bump and the internal barrel will bend out of alignment. Since it's considered 'impact' damage, you just got yourself a very expensive paperweight, unless you spend $200 to $300 fixing it.At that point, you might as well have bought a real lens from Nikon to begin with.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
883303
I Have the sony A55, this is the leans I keep on the camera. I did just buy the sony 70-300 for a tennis trip I'm going on. I love my camera and the Tamron len's that I own I'm very pleased with.
458268
Hi John, I've been researching this question for longer than is sane. It's easy to overwhelm yourself if you read every single (differing) opinion, which I have. I also considered the Sigma 18-250 but it's soft sample pics disappoint me. The comparison pictures on the following link made up my mind to go for the Canon over the Tamron http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_18-200_sigma18-250_tamrom18-250_18-270.htm The other things include the indecisive AF on Tamron, this would frustrate me but would cause my wife to give up using it. I am convinced with fast moving kids and finding my favourite shots through an opportunistic eye that a superzoom is the way for me. If you set out to photograph a certain thing and aren't distracted by serendipity then multiple lens' might work for you.
1756269
As a professional photographer myself, I weighed both options heavily prior to purchasing the Sigma 70-200 which I absolutely love! The quality is amazing. I did ask other photographers who owned the tamron lens and paid the cheaper price but defined the sigma lens as the better deal. One of the main reasons is construction of the lens. They reported the tamron lens having more problems after a few years and going 'soft' due to the plastic casing whereas the sigma didn't-making it a better choice for the money. I think the sigma lens will pay for itself this year.