Tamron 28-270? Any advice on zoom lenses?

[photosbylesley]

My Tamron 70-300mm broke with error 99 and after seeking advice on its repair I have decided to look for a lens to cover the range 28-300 or thereabouts, with a wide angle at the other end. I have a Canon 400D. Do any readers have any advice on matching up the range with a wide angle, so I only need to carry around two lenses at any one time and can avoid keep changing lenses, thus avoiding dust!!? I have just had my sensor cleaned and am now dreading getting bits on it! Also, as in my other post about wide angle lenses, are there any thoughts on the weight of a zoom lens? I'm trying to avoid making mistakes and would like to learn from others' experience.

Thanks in anticipation!

Lesley

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit my website http://www.photosbylesley.co.uk
Follow me on Twitter @photosbylesley

[ap4a]

I don't have advice on a superzoom, but can say that there are 'sometimes' simple, correctable, causes of the dreaded err 99: https://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.31/canon-err99

[chris-p]

Hi Lesley

There isn't a Tamron 28-270 but you can get one of two 28-300's or an 18-270.

First off, I'd avoid the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI as it's not stabilised which (these days) is something I'd really want on a 300mm lens.

The next option would be theTamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC Di which is the same as the one above but with a stabiliser. It should be around £500.

Finally (long focal length wise) there is the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC Asp IF Macro (what a wonderful name) which is arounf £450.

Wideangle-wise, it's going to depend on whether you mind having a gap in focal lengths (potentially between 24 and 28mm). If you had a 28-300 lens your best options would be either the Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II LD AF SP Asp IF (around £400) or the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X AF PRO DX II which is around £500.

Both of those will leave you with a small, and probably insignificant, gap in focal lengths between 24 and 28mm.

If you went for the 18-270mm then you'd have no gap between it and either of the 2 wideangles I've already listed and it would allow you to also consider the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM which is very very popular (I've got one and love it to pieces!) and costs around £400 new.

[photosbylesley]

Thanks Ap4a, for the advice on error 99. I had already tried the contacts theory but it is useful to read other suggestions.

Lesley

[photosbylesley]

Hi Chris-P, thanks for the advice on the wide and zoom lenses. Yes, I mixed up the lenses...that's why I'm asking for advice on here!! Really helpful to read what is possible and what others find to be good lenses. So, thanks again! I'll let you know what I eventually decide, funds allowing!

Lesley

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit my website: www.photosbylesley.co.uk
Follow me on Twitter: @photosbylesley

[rbarry]

Hi Lesley,

I too have owned a Canon 400D from new and still love the results that this camera gives. I purchased the camera with the kit lens. Shortly after this purchase a relative bought me a Canon EF 90-300 f4.5-5.6 lens as a birthday gift. Although this long Canon zoom lens is at the bottom end of the market, with a decent tripod it actually produces pretty good images. Anything handheld though is a bit hit and miss especially in conditions other than perfectly clear daylight skies.

I bought a Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro over two years ago as an upgrade alternative for the kit lens. I also bought the excellent value for money prime Canon 50 f1.8 (ver. 2) which I love. With these four lenses I thought I had everything covered.

However, the Sigma 17-70 could never match the image quality produced by the Canon 50 f1.8, and whilst I was predominately using the Sigma lens, there were increasing occasions when I needed the extra length of the 90-300. This meant carrying around kit, and changing over lenses more often than I would like, which is a dangerous time for any SLR, especially in the great outdoors re dust, rain etc.

I appreciate the Sigma 17-70 lens is pretty well respected, but I was either spoilt by the results I was getting from the "nifty 50", or my example of the Sigma 17-70 wasn't the best out there. Either way, I wanted something to replace the Sigma 17-70 with something similar in Zoom length but with a dedicated constant fixed aperture of f2.8. With this in mind I started researching on the internet, re-reading my collection of Photoplus issues and hitting the high street for some hands on experience. It must be said I was also tempted by the possibility of a super zoom and my research extended partially down that avenue too.

I called in at W H Smiths on my way to Jessops and LCE, and purchased the latest copy of Photoplus , March 2010 edition. Having a quick flick through the magazine I came across the article on super zooms. Following on from an article in the January 2010 edition entitled "gear of the year 2009" the Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 appeared as the outright winner of the super zooms 2009, and also featured highly in the March edition of the group test. This was all very dangerous reading!!

Suffice to say I sold the Sigma 17-70 and bought the Tamron 18-270. I know the results from the Tamron will never match the image quality of the Sigma, but the versatility the Tamron 18-270 offers is of greater value to me for every day amateur use. I still have the Canon 50mm f1.8 for when image quality is demanded, although the lens is somewhat specialised and less versatile for specific tasks.

So far I've found the Tamron 18-270 give great results for my purpose and have no regrets in my decision. The image stabilisation works very well and has given me greater confidence in using this lens where I could never have used the Canon 90-300, by capitalising on the added advantage this stabilised technolgy affords. It really works very well on such long focal lengths.

But the quest isn't over yet! I still need to replace the Sigma 17-70 with an equivalent lens but of better light gathering capability.

The choices have been narrowed down to:

1. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Not the recently announced VC (image stabilised) model.
2. Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Again, not the image stabilised model.
3. Sigma 17-50 f2.8 Recently announced in February 2010.


The Tamron has been around for a few years now and seems to have stood the test of time as being a very sharp lens for the price. From what I've read, the new VC model isn't quite as sharp, so I don't see having VC on a relatively short focal length lens offers much of an advantage, especially if it affects image quality and adds considerably to the price. Both are current models.

The sigma 18-50 f2.8 has been around for a while too, but I've read that it's now in it's fourth iteration and to avoid the first two. The third release of the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is an EX Macro badged lens and the latest release has image stabilisation, though both of these are still current models. Again, I don't see the necessity of IS on such a fast short focal length lens.

I can't find any reviews on the recently announced Sigma 17-50 f2.8 so I can't comment on this lens, but would love to know more.


My understanding has been made by researching the net and asking questions from amateurs, professionals and "experts". Brand loyalty and personal ownership of one lens but not the comparable "other", makes it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff when researching anything like this. I have no axe to grind and hope I haven't upset anyone with the opinions I have reached from the copious amounts of data I've looked at.

If anyone is/was in a similar position and wants a fast lens of similar specification, please let me know your opinion.

Lastly Lesley, I hope you don't think I've hijacked your post. It's been a month since anyone has posted here but I am really interested in what decision you have come to and if you have made a purchase.

All the best,

Rick.