Just a quick question, /p/ - is this thing right here (Tamron

File: 657.jpg (375KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 2000x2000px

...or should I go with pic related?

>>3031603
for what camera and for what purpose?

>>3031607
Just sold an older version of that one today. VR is nice but focus was jumping back and forth in AF-C. Maybe mine was shit. Never buy tamron though.

>>3031607
I haven't used that version, but its predecessor without the collapsing barrel is a fantastic little lens for the price of entry. Sharp and contrasty, maybe a bit on the slow AF side but gotta compromise somewhere

>>3031607
I have the same, I'm thinking of seling it for a 70-300

>>3031603
>superzoom vs tele

Damn, I fell asleep after making this thread and forgot about it.

>>3031631
D3300. Just replacing a kit lens with something as multipurpose as possible.

The amount of money I can spend right now is so close to 0 it's definitely not funny.

>>3031986
Kit lens is fine mate. Better image quality than that piece of shit.

If your images are shit, it's probably you, not the lens.

>>3031994
>piece of shit

Fug.

That's not what I hoped it to be.

>>3032069
>I want a compact, very cheap lens, that covers 18mm - 200mm, with excellent image quality, price limit is $200.

I fail to believe anyone is this dumb, do you think other lenses exist with much less versatility, much larger and much higher prices just for shits and giggles?

Fuck, you're dumb.

>>3032073
Come on, you know that's not what I wanted to say.

I want a compact, very cheap lens, that covers 18mm - 200mm, with image quality not particularly worse than what the kit lens can do.

Hoped this was it and then I'm told it's JUST a piece of shit. Dreams shattered.

>>3032083
If you're on a tight budget, maybe you should be saving your money anon

Don't underestimate the kit 18-55 and the 55-200 combo. The IQ is great for the miniscule price. I was a poorfag and relied on the original 18-55VR for many years. It survived countless weeks of hiking and field biology in Yellowstone and all over the western US, and didn't even stutter through the harsh -40°winter there. I've since upgraded to a proper wide but some of my favorite photos I've ever taken came out of that plasticky sucker. If you've got the VRII version it's even better.

>>3032073
>>3032083

Alot of people are snobs, plain and simple.

Yes, a good expensive lens will take much better pics than a cheaper lens, just like a 4 digit price tag DSLR will take better pics than an entry level DSLR. But ultimately it comes down to what YOU can do with the equipment you have on hand. I have seen plenty of great REBEL series camera photos and plenty of shit-tier Nikon D7000 pics..

My point being that yes, that lens is probably not going to be terrific, but it shouldn't be a complete P.O.S. either. I usually check youtube for hands-on reviews instead of asking for advice on 4chan.. I honestly don't know why anyone expects to get a legit response to anything here..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLly6F9z6No
^Review on the lens you asked about. Not going to be getting any masterpiece portraits or anything with it, but depending on what your hoping to use it for it might work alright.