Canon versus Tamron lenses (Page 2): Your camera has an APS-C sized sensor that has a crop factor of 1.6. If you multiply 1.6 x 28-300, that's an Equivalent Focal Length (EFL) of...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Main Photography Discussion

Canon versus Tamron lenses

Page <prev 2 of 3 next>

Apr 18, 2012 18:56:33 #

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

joec wrote:

quote=oldtool2 quote=joec quote=nlvhal I am thi... (show quote)

Joe,

What he uses it for is his business. You are trying to compare a 18-200mm to a 28-300mm lens. Take the 18-200mm and put it on a 1.6 crop sensor and you have the 35mm equivalent to a 29-320mm lens. Take the 28-300mm lens he is referencing and put it on a 1.6 crop sensor body and you will have the 35mm equivalent of a 45-480mm lens. How can you compare them in size? A 28-300 is a 28-300 and I don't care what camera body you put it on or what you use it for.

The closest Canon makes to that size glass is a 70-300mm lens. The next closest is a 55-250mm. Unless of course you want to consider the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM which costs around $2500.00.

Jim D

Apr 18, 2012 22:21:40 #

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

nlvhal wrote:

I am thinking about purchasing a Tamron AF 28-300 XR Di LD VC lens for my Canon camera in the $650 price range-would anyone know of a Canon manufactured lens in the same range that would be a better choice.Thank you for all suggestions. My main camera is a T2i.

It appears you're looking for a jack of all trades, master of none IN the $600 - $700 range. The topic has been covered here before - BUT - - here are a couple of web sites that will help you decide on features versus price. Although more expensive and not quite as long, I chose the Canon 18-200 for my 7D. With your crop sensor T2i, I don't think you'll be happy with a 28mm for the wide end! Even with an 18mm - I often need my Tokina 12-24 in situations where the 18 just can't get it all.
.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=35
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Apr 18, 2012 22:46:03 #

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

CANON 70-200 F4 L non IS = $600 + or - ! This lens is a game changer - it is completely in another league from all the Tamrons, Tokinas, and Sigmas and you will NOT lose any money whenever you are crazy enough to sell it. Most Nikon people have no experience with it.

Apr 18, 2012 23:24:39 #

barbkelly Loc: Delaware

imagemeister wrote:

I totally agree!!

Apr 19, 2012 00:28:49 #

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

In my experience super zooms usually require too much of a compromise in sharpness and contrast. Now, a lot folks will swear by their super zooms and use post production to compensate for the shortcomings of the lens. I personally cannot make that compromise. If you like sharp details and accurate contrast do not buy a zoom lens with more than a 5x zoom factor. If you can stretch that $600-700 range to $850. I would suggest the follwoing for your Canon T2I (that;s what I am currently shooting). I suggest the Tamron 70-300 that is current 449 less 50 rebate and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 that is 499 less 25 rebate. That's 850 for two lens es you will not ever wish to replace. The 70-300 is actually rated higher than the Canon in its price range and the 17-50 is just a brilliant everyday lens for indoor photography.

Apr 19, 2012 00:40:36 #

olcoach Loc: Oregon

Hi, I have some Canon L lens and some Canon regular lens and some Tamron lens and some Sigma lens. They are all good except for the Sigma. I won't buy another Sigma but I have a Tamron 18-270 that is on my camera as my walk-around lens and I get some great shots with it. Have fun and keep shootin'. Mike

Apr 20, 2012 15:58:08 #