Muep
Hello!
I’m looking to buy a new telephoto or all-round lens and have now narrowed it down to a choice between just two:
The Canon 70-200 4L: I could get it second-hand (in good condition) from a friend for just under €600, and it’s a brilliant piece of kit.
The Tamron A20 N 28-300: I’d buy this
new for the same price; it has a wider focal range but isn’t quite as fast.
I’m leaning towards the Tamron because I actually prefer to cover a wide range with the same lens and because it’s new; on the other hand, I’ve always wanted to own a Canon – even if it’s just to test whether the usual price premium is really worth it.
Do you have any thoughts on this that might help me make up my mind?
Regards,
Muep
Tandemfahren
Yes, I have. Forget the Tamron. I’d also strongly recommend getting the Canon with the stabilizer (optically, they’re the same). Unless, of course, you ALWAYS shoot from a tripod.
The Canon isn’t just nominally faster; you can actually open the aperture all the way without any worries. A brilliant bit of kit.
I’ve never actually held the Tamron, but it hasn’t fared well in various tests. The idea that such a cheap 10x zoom lens exists that delivers really good results is simply too good to be true.
And ‘what’s too good to be true is too good to be true’, as the Latin saying goes ;-)
My two cents,
Frank
AchimBauer
Hi Muep,
Here’s a bit of advice that’s not really about photography, setting aside image quality and light sensitivity.
I don’t know how you take photos – do you go out specifically to hunt for shots, or do you lug your kit along on every family outing?
If you go for the Tamron, you’ll save yourself having to carry a second or even a third lens, though you might have to compromise on quality.
I’ve reached the point where I’m happy to compromise on quality in favour of weight, unless I’m specifically out hunting for shots – in which case I save on the distance I have to cover.
As for the Canon, why not have a look on eBay to see what it costs on average second-hand?
Regards, Achim
TiMo
Hi Muerp,
Personally, I never buy anything from Sigma, Tamron or the like. Quite simply because the resale value is significantly lower than that of the ‘original manufacturers’. At least here in the UK.
I’d never buy lenses new either, because you save so much buying second-hand. Of course, it’s important to be able to inspect second-hand lenses beforehand, or to have a dealer you trust.
Best regards,
Tim
Muep
Hello!
Thanks in advance for your feedback!
@Frank: I do often have a tripod (pocket-sized), but I don’t always have it with me, so you’re right that a stabilizer wouldn’t be a bad idea. I’d really have to have a proper look around to see if I can find one second-hand somewhere. Given the price of a new one, I nearly fainted ;-) Why does great stuff always have to be so expensive...
@Achim: That’s definitely one reason why the Tamron made it onto my shortlist. When I’m ‘just out and about’, I actually prefer to carry only the bare essentials, but I still want to be able to capture a variety of shots – from snapshots and beautiful views to portraits of my kids and wife playing. And when you consider that most people use their mobile phone cameras for this, even with the Tamron the results wouldn’t be all that bad ;-)
@Tim: I haven’t sold any lenses yet; I’ve only given them to friends as birthday presents when I could really part with them. I also rarely buy new ones, which is why my collection is small enough that I can keep most of them. That’s why resale value isn’t all that important to me personally. It will become relevant again, though, as soon as I reach the point where I have several lenses with the same function. But that’s still a while off :)
I’m still leaning towards the Tamron at the moment, even though the counter-arguments didn’t sound wrong. I’ll give it some more thought...
Regards,
Muep
Urnes
So when it comes to superzoom lenses, it depends on where you’re taking photos and, above all, how much light you have. If you have enough light and can consistently shoot at 1/250s with an ISO of 400 and an aperture of f/8, it can be a great option. If you have less light and constantly have to check whether the shutter speed is still within the acceptable range, and hold your breath so you don’t shake, it’s a bit of a struggle. Indoors, it also has less depth of field, unless you use a flash. And you should test beforehand whether you can cope with the distortion. Because it’s certainly more pronounced than on the Canon.
Regards, Sven.
Muep
Hmm. I suppose the Canon is the better choice after all. I don’t like using the flash, but using a longer exposure time only works if the subjects aren’t moving around too much. Which, unfortunately, isn’t really the case with children. ;)
cfb_de
When using flash, it’s particularly nice to have a consistent light output across the entire focal length range. And as far as I know, the Tamron ‘Suppenhuhn’ doesn’t have that.
Best regards,
Franz
