Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Which lens to buy for my DSLR?
I have a Nikon D 5100. After a bit of photography with the kit lens I have started looking out for zoom lenses and have zeroed onto two lenses, both Tamron. What i am wondering is should i go for a dedicated zoom lens 70-300 mm or should i go for a more all purpose lens 18-270 mm. The reviews of both suggest that both are good, the 70-300 mm is cheaper ($400 after mail in rebate) while the 18-270 mm is for $500 (after mail in rebate). The reviews also indicate that the 70-300 mm is a little better in terms of border and centre sharpness and also better with chromatic aberration. But the advantage of the 18-270 mm lens is that you just need to carry one lens. What is your opinion on this? Is it worth sacrificing a bit of quality for ease of use (no changing of lens)?
2 Answers
- Jeroen WijnandsLv 710 years agoFavorite Answer
For me it wouldn't be worth it. I can do most casual photography with a 18-100ish lens. I've yet to see a superzoom that comes close to a decent 70-300 in image quality and handling and focus.
- keerokLv 710 years ago
The longer the zoom range is, the worse optically. All you get with a supper zoom is flexibility. Primes are the best. Changing lenses is what the dSLR was made for. If I want to go light with only one lens, I bring a 50mm.
You only buy a third-party branded lens if you can not afford the same brand as your camera. Expect the third-party lens to be much more inferior.
