The 55-250, is somewhat better in those three areas and is supported by the Peripheral Illumination feature. However, since this is a non Canon lens, the automatic in-camera Peripheral Illumination option, to correct vignetting, is not available. For a super zoom, vignetting, barrel distortion, and chromatic aberration are reasonably well controlled. Convenient, less chance of getting dirt in your camera from lens changes, less missed shots when changing lenses, non rotating front element so you can easily use a polarizing filter, and it comes with a lens hood.
The 18-270 PZD is a very compact and very light weight "do it all" one lens solution for travel. I own both and agree with all the comments from the previous posters. If you are after a sharper lens for daytime use, the canon 15-85mm seems highly recommended. If you don't need an all-one solution and your happy to carry two lenses and swap them over as necessary, stick with what you have. The benefit I see of the 18-270mm, is not needing to change lens. Its just a pain to switch lenses in those situations where I am just looking to shoot some photos and not necessarily too worried about image quality. If the answer is for me to live with what I have until I can afford more, I can accept that too.
My budget is pretty restricted, I wont be spending too much more than the two that I listed. I am going on a cruise vacation in a few weeks, and it would be nice to have the versatility that you get with the two tamron wide range lenses (or any others that you guys suggest). What is the quality comparison of the nifty 250 to either of the tamron ultra zooms? I have my 17-50 for when I am interested in taking sharper or lower light photos, as well as the nifty 50. My question: Is it worth "upgrading" my 55-250 to the tamron 18-270, or alternatively the 28-300. I currently have the tammy 17-50, nifty fifty, and nifty two-fifty.
0 kommentar(er)
