User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Tamron PZD 18-270

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Jun 2011
    Location
    Mullaloo
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Tamron PZD 18-270

    I have seen a Tamron PZD "all in one" lens advertised in a magazine.
    It is 18-270mm f3.5 - 6.3.
    Does anyone know if theses are any good as an all rounder or anyone used one?
    cheers
    Graeme

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,436
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Not specific to this lens, but the 'super-zooms' are generally not the best. However if budget constraints limit you, they can be useful, as long as you do not expect stunning and perfect results at all focal lengths. They could be classified as a 'kit' lens.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Member greenpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i had this lens with a d40x a while ago, it was good for a holidays as you just have one lens for everything but like ricktas has said, dont expect anything stunning to come from the lens.
    D7000
    D40X
    10.5mm f/2.8
    12-24mm f/4
    35mm f/1.8
    70-200mm f/2.8 OS
    www.flickr.com/green_pea

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2011
    Location
    Caroline Springs
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the PZD lens. It is okay for what it is. I use it as a travel lens when I get want to get around and get snap shots. Don't expect great IQ but if you accept them for what they are you may get good use out of it. It is a new model so price is an issue. I got mine for $400 when it first came out at the start of this year at about half the retail price and still think I paid $200 too much for it.

    Below is an image followed by a crop. That is the sort of IQ you can get. Some might argue for a portrait you want a soft lens.

    Questoin for Greenpea: Are you sure you used this lens as it is pretty new?

    DSC_3395 red_tn.jpg

    DSC_3395_cr_tn.jpg
    Last edited by Danielepaolo; 29-06-2011 at 10:24pm.

  5. #5
    Member greenpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    actually sorry, it was not the PZD model, sorry guys

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Apr 2011
    Location
    Wynn Vale
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Surely someone has bought this lens, and has an opinion....... I'm off to the UK & Europe in a couple of weeks, I'm wondering if I should buy this lens. I have a Nikon D7000, with one standard kit lens. Any suggestions would be good.
    A Quote by Jon Kabat-Zinn on surf, life, and problems.

    "You can't stop the waves, but you can learn to surf."

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2011
    Location
    Caroline Springs
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What more would you like to know? Tell us what you like to shoot and your expectations. If there is a certain type of shot you would like to see then let me know. I'll check if I have it so you can make your own mind up.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Apr 2011
    Location
    Wynn Vale
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've been looking at lots of reviews for the Tamron lens. I would probably like to buy a Nikon lens (18 - 200) but that is $400 dearer and I'm not sure if there is that much difference. As I'm only starting out in photography it all gets a bit confusing, so I guess what I'm after is the opinion of others who have the new Tamron lens. I want a general all round lens - I don't want to carry a heap of lenses when I travel. But I also want a good quality lens. I've read about the positives and the negatives of the 18 - 270 and would like the opinion of someone who has bought and used it, rather than store salespeople who may or may not know what they are talking about.

    By the way, where did you get it for $400? The cheapest I can find it for is $649 at Ted's Cameras.
    Last edited by nobby58; 01-08-2011 at 9:43am.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    8,372
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it`s all a compromise really. Like you, I want a travel lens....or did. Still undecided as the last two trips I have had the nikon 17-55 and it`s been on the camera most of the time. I`m very happy with the crops I`ve made and quite honestly I havn`t thought much about the few shots I didn`t take because of the short (55mm) focal length. It is a big decision and from whats been said here I won`t be getting the tamron 18-270. I have not helped at all have I.....
    Graeme
    "May the good Lord look down and smile upon your face"......Norman Gunston___________________________________________________
    Nikon: D7000, D80, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8, 18-135, 70-300VR, 35f2, SB 400, SB 600, TC-201 2x converter. Tamron: 90 macro 2.8 Kenko ext. tubes. Photoshop CS2.


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2011
    Location
    Caroline Springs
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nobby58 View Post
    I've been looking at lots of reviews for the Tamron lens. I would probably like to buy a Nikon lens (18 - 200) but that is $400 dearer and I'm not sure if there is that much difference.
    This is a good start. You are comparing apples with apples. From what I ahve seen elsehwere there would be little difference between the Nikon and the Tamron over the 18-200mm range. That of course is quite subjective as I offer no results here but others would say the argument is (let's say) superfluous because the output from a camera using either lens is compromised. As far as superzoom lenses go there is not much difference really, none that matter really.

    You get the extra 70mm as well out to 270mm. You need to also ask yourself what focal lengths you normally shoot at. If you shoot below 100mm mainly perhaps one of the shorter lenses with large aperture would be better suited if your IQ demands are high.

    Quote Originally Posted by nobby58 View Post
    As I'm only starting out in photography it all gets a bit confusing, so I guess what I'm after is the opinion of others who have the new Tamron lens. I want a general all round lens - I don't want to carry a heap of lenses when I travel. But I also want a good quality lens. I've read about the positives and the negatives of the 18 - 270 and would like the opinion of someone who has bought and used it, rather than store salespeople who may or may not know what they are talking about.
    One problem is the compromise. There are people who would not use a superzoom lens because the compromise in IQ is too much. For these people their walkaround lens could be a 35mm prime or a short zoom with large aperture.

    If you want a good quality lens then note that using that in the same sentence as a superzoom lens would be an oxymoron unless a negative was involved, ie: NOT. Then there are brand snobs who would not go for anything but Nikon lenses.

    If brand does not bother you then you have to decide whether output suits (I have provided an image above). If so and you shoot a bit above 75mm then the lens in question would work well as a general all purpose lens in the superzoom lens category.


    Quote Originally Posted by nobby58 View Post
    By the way, where did you get it for $400? The cheapest I can find it for is $649 at Ted's Cameras.
    This was the second time I got lucky buying camera gear off ebay. I was watching this lens but it was too much (>$800 on ebay). I saw a listing for a used Tamron 18-270mm lens (used only once) but the non-PZD version. It was priced with a starting bid of $400, about the max you would pay for that lens at the time. I noticed however that the picture was the PZD lens in the PZD lens box. I took a punt and bid, noone else bid so I bought the lens and what I got was the PZD lens in pristine condition.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Apr 2011
    Location
    Wynn Vale
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Danielepaolo
    Thanks for the reply. Plenty to think about, and perhaps the Nikon 18-105 kit lens will suffice for my trip to Europe.

    Quote by Danielepaolo
    If you want a good quality lens then note that using that in the same sentence as a superzoom lens would be an oxymoron unless a negative was involved, ie: NOT.
    I think this comment sort of summed it up for me. Maybe it's better to wait and save the pennies until I can afford a larger aperture short zoom lens.

    Anyhow, thanks for your very detailed reply, much appreciated.

  12. #12
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My understanding, Graeme, is that (contrary to Danielepaolo's view) the Nikon 18-200 is easily the best of the superzooms. You really have to answer three questions:

    1: Do I want a superzoom? Am I prepared to sacrifice speed and clarity and distortion for the convenience of a single do-everything lens?

    2: If yes to (1), then isn't it silly to waste hundreds of dollars extra getting the Nikon when even it is only so-so quality-wise by comparison to normal lenses? Or is it even sillier to spend all that money on a trip to Europe and not record it properly? (In which case buy the Nikon.) And if yes to that, then is it worth going the whole hog and getting a pair of decent lenses for the trip, and keeping them when you return? But then again, why take the risk of loss or theft? Isn't it better to take a lens you don't care about, in case it is stolen?

    3: Has question (2) given you a huge headache? Do you drink, and is there a bottle nearby?

    If you do get a superzoom, I think the key question is Am I going to keep this lens when I get home, or is it just for travel? If you are going to keep it, get the Nikon, or some other high-quality superzoom, if there is such a thing. ("High quality" by superzoom standards, anyway, which isn't very.)

    If it is just for travel, then a cheapie will be best. You can buy something decent to replace it when you return.

    Clear as mud?
    Tony

    ‘Let's eat Grandma.’ Commas save lives!

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Veteran Speedway's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Sep 2008
    Location
    Cowangie
    Posts
    2,516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just a bit from the mini test of the Tamron 18-270 PZD in the April 2011 digital Photo Magazine.
    "At £549 the 18-270 F3.5=6.3 Di ll VC PZD seems a bit too expensive - it's £180 more than the previous model and £145 more than it's closest rival the Sigma 18-250 F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM (£404). When it comes to the crunch. We’d be tempted to sacrifice the Tamron 18-270mm's extra length in favour of the cheaper and still solid-performing Sigma 18-250mm."
    In another article the Sigma 18-200 got their award over the others including the Nikon and Canon and a later issue put the 18-250 higher again stating that it had overcome a lot of the former's problems.
    Keith.
    Last edited by Speedway; 03-08-2011 at 9:29pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •