New lens!

[joanna71985]

I just got the Tamron 18-270mm for my Nikon, and I love it! I got to try it out at Fantasmic (which was also my first time seeing the show in over 2 years), and I was very happy with how the lens worked. It is soooo nice not having to switch out lenses every 2 seconds.

Eventually I want to get a longer zoom lens (I'm looking at the Sigma 105-500), but that won't be for quite some time. I may also get a prime, but I'm not sure how I would do with it.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I just got the Tamron 18-270mm for my Nikon, and I love it! I got to try it out at Fantasmic (which was also my first time seeing the show in over 2 years), and I was very happy with how the lens worked. It is soooo nice not having to switch out lenses every 2 seconds.

Eventually I want to get a longer zoom lens (I'm looking at the Sigma 105-500), but that won't be for quite some time. I may also get a prime, but I'm not sure how I would do with it.

Prime is the way to go... sharper lenses in general, although the only downside is price. The 50 1.4 is affordable, the 1.8 is really CHEAP. Unfortunately the prime world really ends there. The 35 1.8 isnt bad price wise but I don't like that lens, I much prefer the 1.4 for build quality and aperture blade count inducing an incredible bokeh... that lens will set you back 1300 or so bones.

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

Prime is the way to go... sharper lenses in general, although the only downside is price. The 50 1.4 is affordable, the 1.8 is really CHEAP. Unfortunately the prime world really ends there. The 35 1.8 isnt bad price wise but I don't like that lens, I much prefer the 1.4 for build quality and aperture blade count inducing an incredible bokeh... that lens will set you back 1300 or so bones.

Does this hold true for the bigger lenses such as the 300mm?

 

[ddbowdoin]

Does this hold true for the bigger lenses such as the 300mm?

What do you mean? If you had a lower end zoom that went to 300MM vs a prime 300mm (albeit thats like a 5,000 dollar lens) then yes, there is a sharpness difference. But that's apples and oranges, because pro lenses are built better, sealed, and include higher grade optical glass.

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

What do you mean? If you had a lower end zoom that went to 300MM vs a prime 300mm (albeit thats like a 5,000 dollar lens) then yes, there is a sharpness difference. But that's apples and oranges, because pro lenses are built better, sealed, and include higher grade optical glass.

I just mean; Is the 300mm prime (1,400.00) much sharper than the 28-300mm (2,500.00) at 300mm?

 

[ddbowdoin]

I just mean; Is the 300mm prime (1,400.00) much sharper than the 28-300mm (2,500.00) at 300mm?

Yes it is. Price is not always an indicator, but generally speaking most consumers aren't buying either pro primes or pro 2.8 zooms. They're buying low end products.

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

Yes it is. Price is not always an indicator, but generally speaking most consumers aren't buying either pro primes or pro 2.8 zooms. They're buying low end products.

Yeah, the 2.8 300 is more like 7,000. The one for 1500 is f4.

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

I just got the Tamron 18-270mm for my Nikon, and I love it! I got to try it out at Fantasmic (which was also my first time seeing the show in over 2 years), and I was very happy with how the lens worked. It is soooo nice not having to switch out lenses every 2 seconds.

Eventually I want to get a longer zoom lens (I'm looking at the Sigma 105-500), but that won't be for quite some time. I may also get a prime, but I'm not sure how I would do with it.

That`s good to know, I have the Tamron 17-50, 2.8 and I like it a lot. I am also looking at their 70-200 2.8.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Yeah, the 2.8 300 is more like 7,000. The one for 1500 is f4.

I was close at 5 grand, 7g's phew... Big coin

 

[CP_alum08]

That`s good to know, I have the Tamron 17-50, 2.8 and I like it a lot. I am also looking at their 70-200 2.8.

I've been looking at the Tamron 70-200 for a while but haven't pulled the trigger. It's BY FAR the best priced 70-200 and I've had good luck with Tamron but it almost just seems too good to be true, you know?

 

[joanna71985]

Prime is the way to go... sharper lenses in general, although the only downside is price. The 50 1.4 is affordable, the 1.8 is really CHEAP. Unfortunately the prime world really ends there. The 35 1.8 isnt bad price wise but I don't like that lens, I much prefer the 1.4 for build quality and aperture blade count inducing an incredible bokeh... that lens will set you back 1300 or so bones.

Thanks for the info!

 

[PhotoDave219]

I just got the Tamron 18-270mm for my Nikon, and I love it! I got to try it out at Fantasmic (which was also my first time seeing the show in over 2 years), and I was very happy with how the lens worked. It is soooo nice not having to switch out lenses every 2 seconds.

Eventually I want to get a longer zoom lens (I'm looking at the Sigma 105-500), but that won't be for quite some time. I may also get a prime, but I'm not sure how I would do with it.

Lets see some photos.

 

[joanna71985]

Lets see some photos.

Ok, just have to upload them (but be warned- while they're good to me, they may not look that good to professionals )

 

[ddbowdoin]

I've been looking at the Tamron 70-200 for a while but haven't pulled the trigger. It's BY FAR the best priced 70-200 and I've had good luck with Tamron but it almost just seems too good to be true, you know?

want to buy my Nikon?

 

[joanna71985]

Ok, here are a few:
(yes, I know it needs to be centered more)

 

[CP_alum08]

want to buy my Nikon?

for the same price as the Tamron? Sure!