Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:17 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:51 pm 
Having used Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 lens for about a year I've been generally happy with the range and optical quality it provides. However I recently attempted to shoot some flying birds and found the lens to be slow at the longest 250mm end. It was not able to focus fast enough to track a flying bird which resulted in blurred photos of the subject as it took long time for the lens to decide where to focus, the subject (bird) or the background (some trees and plants).
I heard that the equivalent Sony 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 lens is optically identical to the Tamron version but is "a bit faster". So my question is: would this translate to any significant difference in the wildlife photography, particularly tracking fast moving object? Or the difference is so negligible that it is not worth of upgrading to the Sony version? The price difference between the two lenses is about 100 $.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:07 am
Posts: 1012
Location: North of the 49th parallel
I doubt that you will find much difference between the two.
The lens is slow for action shots, I usually delete about 90% of my speedy captures, but the ones that lock look great.


Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8042
Location: UK
While the Sony version has a reputation of being faster to focus than the Tamron, without 1st hand experience its hard to quantify how much difference there will be.

Having said that, focus speed shouldn't affect the blurryness of the image as long as it is in focus, which then depends on shutter speed and movement of the camera or subject.

As a side though, how about looking at a 70-300 lens instead?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:36 pm 
Ok, I guess I should not bother with it then.
Popo, do you mean the kit 70-300mm lens? I had it before and there were problems with chromatic abberation at the 300mm end. The G lens would be nice but it is not universal for travel which is why I will stick with 18-250mm lens.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8042
Location: UK
The Sony version is 75-300 unless you fork out for the high end 70-300G.

I was thinking more of the Tamron or Sigma versions. More Tamron to avoid possible gear stripping issues.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group