Tamron superzoom 18-270mm

[hus]

For starters I am no expert at testing lens so if l have overlooked some aspect of this exercise then I apologize.
The reason I compared my all in one tamron 18-270 zoom with my tamron 70-200 f2.8 was to see just how close could it come to the fast lens.
I have seen in reviews of the fast tamron (70-200) the IQ up there with the big name lens, for this exercise I took a pictures at 70mm and 200mm at f11 on both lens, I have also included a shot at 270mm just out of curiosity.
On my next post I have to pictures shot at 200mm f11 and crop the image to compare both lens.


The image below is from my tamron 70-200 at 70mm f11


This image below is from my tamron super zoom 18-270 at 70mm f11




Then the shots were taken zoom in at 200mm for both lens

The image below was from my tamron 70-200 at 200mm f11


The image below was from the super zoom 18-270 at 200mm f11


And this final shot was shot at 270mm just see if it really went too soft at the end of its focal length


The other reason this was done was because of some questions l saw on the forum people rightfully being concerned how this lens performed before out laying big sums of money.

I opinions would help future buyers of the lens making up their minds whether to buy or not buy.
I am not recommending it or saying avoid it but this is just my results, but since I took the effort write this up I may as well voice my opinion ;-)
Personally I love this lens and it also works fine with my Kenko teleconverter without much trouble out doors. If anyone is curious on how the images come out with the teleconverter just ask for samples to be posted up.

[hus]

Also here are the crops from both those lens

The crop below is from the tamron 70-200


The crop below is from the tamron super zoom 18-270



Please feel free to leave all opinions as this would help out everyone who was in the same spot at me as to buy or not buy.

[arthurking83]

Funny that you posted this brief comparo hus.

I also tested the 18-270 very briefly whilst at the shop with the intention of purchasing it.
I got distracted and also tested the T70-200/2.8 too, as they came in at the same price(close enough).

I was also impressed with the superzoom, and the optical stabilization worked well enough, although not as good as Nikon's VR system on their pro lenses, but at least equal too the consumer version of VR that I've experienced.

I also wanted to stick to my plan of getting the superzoom as I decided at the shop to get the 70-200 instead of the superzoom, but I ended up going with the smaller cheaper easier to use Nikon18-105VR, which is a lot better at the focal lengths that overlap with the Tammy superzoom, but it was for my young son, and I didn't think he'd want the extra, extra reach of the Tammy. I was both wrong and right about that, because he complains more about IQ than of a lack of reach.

had I had the option of either the T18-270 or N18-105VR, I'd now go with the Tammy.

Not the best lens ever made, but for slightly less anally retentive pixel peepers(like me) the superzoom is good value for money.

The only point I want to make about the 70-200/2.8 images, is to try them again at f/5.6 and f/8. From the images I've seen with mine(on a D300) is that f/5.6-f/8 is the best aperture for the best sharpness detail, as it seems to diffract a little more at f/11. I very rarely use mine at f/11, and if I need more DOF, at the longer focal length, I use my Nikon 180/2.8Ais, which looks slightly better.
I've found when it achieves perfect focus, f/4-f/8 is excellent or above excellent, but still not as good, in terms of consistency, as the few images I've captured with a tested Nikon 70-200VR.

Also, what exposure mode did you use on camera? Thsi could have an effect on the resultant images.. more so with the superzoom than with the 70-200.
I noted a massive amount of vignetting from the superzoom, and if you use matrix, or evaluative metering, there could be inconsistent exposure results, as the camera tries to counter the darkened corners with the superzoom. Could be an issue, but then again, it also may not be.

With the 200mm images, there appears to be more light cast onto the clothes peg basket too. If you've used matrix metering, the camera will try to maintain some detail in the shadows with a slightly more compromising exposure on the brighter area of the peg basket. That's what's happened here with the superzoom image. The more brightly exposed clothes peg basket will then have less contrast and hence less 'sharpness'. Notice the shadow at the top of the basket just below the rim in the superzoom image? it's to there in the 70-200 image so the slightly better contrast in that shot will be magnified more than it woudl be in exact same lighting conditions.
The superzoom lens looks to be less sharp(which it ultimately was with my brief test when compared to the 70-200 lens too), but looking at these samples shouldn't be as obvious as this.

Anyhow, it's good to hear/see/read all opinions and experiences.. and not just those from the pros, and that's why I like to share mine, because even tho the pros should be able to test more consistently and thoroughly than we ever could, the performance of the lens is limited by our respective abilities.. and we're not all pros!


good work, and I'm sure someone else will also appreciate your time and effort too.

[djvkool]

Excellent testing mate, I for one, loved my 18-270mm and I can testify how good this lens is, proud owner since it was released (bought it in August 2008) and never let me down so far, with variety of subjects.

Since I bought 7D, I have MA this lens too (-7 on my 7D) and now it is even sharper than when it was mounted on my old 40D

This has to be one of the best valued lens ever made...

[iijm]

Great info guys. This makes for interesting reading particularly when I am considering the Tamron 18-270. Here's hoping for many more mini reviews on this site.
Ian

[hus]

Thanks for feed back as to your question I used the Pattern metering mode on the Canon 30d, I also took those shots at f5.6 but didn't include in my post because of the image limit for each post but here they are.
I am sure l could have picked better subjects and condition to test these lens but I just had the time to do something rather than just sit on the couch surfing the net.
Now thinking about it l should have used spot metering :-[

This image is from the tamron 70-200 at f5.6


This image is from the superzoom 18-270 at f5.6