# Tamron 18-270 vs. 70-300?



## cabrosh (Feb 7, 2011)

Hi- I'm new to the forum, have used a Sony Alpha 100 for years and finally upgraded to a Canon 7D.  I got the 7D instead of the 5D so I could put more money into lenses and got an EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM and an EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM.  Delightful as they are, the 70-200 is just too heavy to lug around on a hike.  I'd like to get a walking around lens and can't decide if I'd be better off getting a Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 Di II VCLD or a 70-300 f4-5.6 DIVC USD AF.  The 18-270 would mean having to take only one lens and would lessen the chance of getting dust in the camera during lens changes.  On the other hand, the Canon 17-55 takes great photos and isn't THAT heavy, so I could get the 70-300, have a bit more range, and save some money.  I mainly use my camera for family photos, vacations, landscapes and wildlife.  Any comments or suggestions?  Has anyone used either of the Tamron lenses?

Also, I can navigate the rest of the forum, but when I click on links in the beginner's forum, nothing happens.  Some of the tutorials look wonderful.  Any idea what's wrong?


----------



## ThomasZ (Feb 8, 2011)

I have heard that Tamron lenses break quite easily and feel much rougher than similarly priced Sigma lenses. It may be worth looking into...


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Feb 8, 2011)

I love the Tamron 18-270 and have had no experience with the 70-300.  I love the range of the 18-270 plus it has macro capabilities which is useful to me.  The only problem I have with this lens is that it's AF doesn't work as great as some others like the Canon 18-200 or the Nikon 18-200.  In lower light, it hunts for a long time and sometimes misses focus.  I do mostly action shots of animals so the slow focus didn't really help me.


----------



## cabrosh (Feb 8, 2011)

Thanks for the advice, guys.  I'll have to check out Sigma lenses.  I know whatever I get won't be as fast and sharp as the Canon 70-200, but it weighs almost five pounds.  I have enough trouble getting myself up and down trails without adding that.


----------



## leepains (Mar 16, 2011)

i hope i did this correctly i have never joined a forum before.  

i have a rebel xt2i, and i too am in the market to purchase a lens.  what did you decide to get the tamron 18-270 or the canon 70-300?  

any advice would be appreciated.

thanks


----------



## Novux (Mar 16, 2011)

I don't have any personal experience with "super-zooms", but I was investigating the uses of them a few months ago on this very forum, and more than one example (mostly experience) was given to prove that these types of "all-purpose" lenses shortchange quality for convenience. Sharpness, clarity, contrast.... you won't get the same quality at any focal length on an all-purpose lens like this as with any other dedicated set lens (telephoto, wide-ange, prime, ect).


----------



## pdq5oh (Mar 16, 2011)

ThomasZ said:


> I have heard that Tamron lenses break quite easily and feel much rougher than similarly priced Sigma lenses. It may be worth looking into...



You heard wrong. The Tamron lenses are every bit as good as the Sigmas. In many cases IQ with the Tamrons is better. I had an 18-270 & thought IQ was very good. The new version of this lens focuses much faster. I have no experience with the 70-300 but the local camera shop is very impressed with it. IQ is very good & it focuses very quickly according to them. Given the Canon 17-55 lens you have, I'd opt for the 70-300.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Mar 17, 2011)

The Tamron 18-270's focus is pretty slow and when it's dark, it has problems tracking the focus.  However, that being said, image quality is very good.  The bokeh on that lens is pretty amazing in my opinion for a telephoto.  The bokeh is definitely better than my 18-200 Nikkor, but focus is much slower and yes build quality isn't as sturdy.

I personally don't like the 70-300 even though it is a quality lens.  For that range I'd much rather use a 70-200 2.8, I wouldn't use that lens unless I really really needed that extra reach.  The build quality is good though and it is sharp.

Out of the 2, I would go for the 18-270.

Edit:  The version I'm talking about is the newer version of the Tammy lens.  It's still slow to focus.


----------



## cabrosh (Mar 21, 2011)

I got the Tamron 70-300.  Yeah, it's not quite as good as the Canon 70-200 L 2.8, but it is lighter, and so far I'm happy with the pictures it takes.   I'm going to be roaming around London on my own looking for pre-dawn pictures, and was afraid that big white lens would be like a "mug me" sign.  I've never had any problems there, but it doesn't hurt to be careful.  BTW, the 70-300 is still no featherweight, it's a substantial lens.


----------



## dnavarrojr (Mar 24, 2011)

I just got the Tamron 18-270 VC for my Canon T2i a couple weeks ago and I absolutely love it.  It's not much of a "studio" lens, I have a 50mm F1.4 and a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 for most of my indoor shooting.  But I love the Tamron for outdoor shooting, especially sports and wildlife.

Mine is brand spanking new and it's built solid.  However, I agree with the "slow focus" as compared to other lenses.  Especially when you're shooting something in the shadows, the clouds roll in, or it's just plain getting dark.  Also, when turning the zoom ring, it gets a little sticky in the middle, so zooming from one end to the other real fast aint gonna happen.  But unlike my Canon 70-300mm IS, the Tamron is sharp from end to end.


----------

