OK, looking at a couple lenses to choose between in the next week or so. What are the opinions between the Tamron 150-600mm and the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8? I know these are two way different lenses, and I know a lot of people love the 150-600mm, especially for the price. I have had the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 and loved it of course, and I've also had a Tamron 200-500mm and a Canon 100-400mm. Both were great lenses. I think the 70-200mm would be a little more versatile, but I like the zoom capability of the big glass too.... Pros and cons for each????
-
-
I think you've answered your own question. Yes, both would be great lenses but the 70-200 would be more versatile. It probably comes down to, how much would you actually need the 150-600 vs the 70-200?
I've been asking myself this same question and if I had both, the 70-200 would be on the camera more often than the 150-600.
To bad they're both not a little more affordable. -
I can't comment on the 150-600 but I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and love it. It is a great lens. I got it to shoot high school football games.Comment
-
Greenhorn here!! Was seriously thinking of buying the Nikon 3300 as my first camera, but it seems as if canon is the TBH favorite, also, some really nice looking deals on lenses for the Canon's. Might have to think this one over again. So from the reading I've been doing, the consensus is put the money in lenses first, then the body will come after I figure out what I'm looking for in pictures. Any intro Nikon or cannon will be good enough for the first year or two. Is this correct?Comment
-
What direction did you end up going?
I've settled on 3 lenses that get me most of what I want for range.
Sigma 18-35 f1.8
Canon 70-200 f4
Sigma 150-600
Between those three I can't imagine what else I'd ever want unless I try to get a lower f-stop on the last two.
I would think you having owned the Canon 70-200 it would be settling to get the tamron.. That canon L glass is magic to me.
But I agree, I'd think you'd use the 70-200 more..Comment
Comment