Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Anyone using this?

[deags]

Thinking about buying this lens based on some promising reviews.
I want to use it as a walkaround lens when on trips etc, to save lugging around extra gear.
Anyone using it, or have suggestions on a different lens for around the same dollars? (~$540 delivered)

[arthurking83]

I don't have any experience with the PZD focusing version, but many moons ago I did try the older version of the 18-270mm and I must say it did quite well considering the type of lens it is.

It's not going to make your jaw drop with its sheer razor sharp image quality, but it's good enough.

one thing that you may notice is that it does render a scene a bit darker than an f/2.8 lens of similarly set exposure values will.
But I also notice the same phenomenon from the Nikon 18-105 lens too ... it underexposes by about -2/3Ev.

I didn't get the 18-270 in the end, just had a 5-10min play in the shop. I ended up getting the Tammy 70-200/2.8 in that 'window shopping' session!

[deags]

How do you find the 70-200? It's also on the list for consideration.

[Speedway]

I have Sigma 18-250 and know a couple of people with the 18-270 tammy I am very happy with the sigma and the others are the same with the tamron. They have there limitations but are a very good walk about lens.
Keith.

[arthurking83]

How do you find the 70-200? It's also on the list for consideration.

Excellent IQ, even compared to the Nikon equivalent.
Focus is not as fast(as the VR or Sigma HSM lenses), but I wouldn't call it slow having gone from the 80-200/2.8 AF-D lens to the Tammy. About on par to the 80-200.

My only regret (now) is not having the image stabilisation feature of the Nikon or Sigma lenses.
Usually not a problem, but sometimes it is, and it'd be nicer to have and not use, in opposition to not having at all and missing a shot because of that fact.

At about $900, it's the best fast aperture 70-200 by a country mile if you can forgive the lack of image stabilisation.

I guess that one day I'll also get myself a high quality teleconverter of some description and see how well it performs with one of them too.

[MiniFighter]

Sorry to jump in, but i too have been considering the Tamron 18-270. I have read a lot of comments stating that the lens is good, but it isnt anything spectacular?

Can i just ask ,im running an 1100D will it be as good (or better) that the kit lenses i have?

Sorry again Deags for thread jacking..

[Speedway]

Both the Tamron 18-270 and the sigma 18-250 are far better than the basic kit lenses. After I got the 18-250 sigma about 3 years ago, my first lens upgrade along with a 90mm tamron macro my kit lenses were never used again.
Keith.

[MaHo]

Sorry to jump in, but i too have been considering the Tamron 18-270. I have read a lot of comments stating that the lens is good, but it isnt anything spectacular?

Can i just ask ,im running an 1100D will it be as good (or better) that the kit lenses i have?

Sorry again Deags for thread jacking..

Should be fine for the 1100D. The GF has it and the IQ is better than I expected. She uses it as a general purpose/walk around lens on her 7D ... and if that's what you want (with no real need for low light etc) then yeah it seems pretty good. Definitely a step up from kit lenses (as compared to my old 55-250). I thought it hunted a little too much for my liking though, but in saying that the kit lens was probably worse

[mini696]

I have the Sigma 18-250 and find it... fine. Its not spectacular like the $1500+ lenses, but it is better than the kit lenses I have used.

Same goes for the Tamron 18-270, I have used a friends and just like the sigma... its fine. I dont like how it extends when held vertically down though.

[arthurking83]

.....

Same goes for the Tamron 18-270, I have used a friends and just like the sigma... its fine. I dont like how it extends when held vertically down though.

Yeah! there aren't too many superzoom lenses that don't have this lens droop syndrome.

I didn't expect my son's Nikon 18-105mm lens to get lens droop tho!

The original Nikon 18-200VR was problematic, and one of the things Nikon tried to address with the updated VRII version.

Focal length creep or droop is a common issue with this type of lens.

[Speedway]

My 18-250 does droop slowly as does my 150-500 but I've never found it a problem.
Keith.

[mongo]

Can only speak about the tamron 18-250 which Mrs Mongo sometimes uses on her pentax. It is a very good performing lens (not spectacular) and she is happy with it as a travel /all purpose lens. It will tend to droop if not locked into position (and it has a lock for that purpose built in).

[Tommo224]

Ah I was looking at these last week, didn't notice this thread.

I too am in the same boat about these range lenses.

Got a couple of big trips at the end of the year, so looking at options for a good travel lens.

Something I can whack on the camera, and carry around to cover all bases without carrying more gear with me.


Low light performance, how does it rate?

[mongo]

.......Low light performance, how does it rate?

Unfortunately, like the 18-250mm it is not a low light performer unless you have a very strong flash

[hus]

I had the Tamrom 18-270 and was quite happy with it until I started to shoot indoor sports. as an outdoor lens its a good performer for general shooting.

[TasEric]

Bought an 18-270 about a week ago, and am very happy with it.
The lens is starting to droop, but it's just a matter of getting into the habit of flicking the lock on and off as needed.
It's sheer luxury to just turn the zoom around to capture exactly the shot you want, instead of continually doing the "2 lens shuffle" with the Canon provided 18-55 and 55-250.

Focusing is fast and quiet in my opinion. (But then again I haven't used L series lenses)
It's a bit subjective, but I think that the shots taken with the Tamron are sharper than with the kit lenses.

There are loads of excellent reviews about this lens on the net.
Also some that bag it, saying that it's not as sharp or as fast or as quiet as the reviewer's favourite lens.

I wanted a good quality, general purpose lens.
And I couldn't find anything else that met these requirements as well as the Tamron 18-270.
cheers,
Eric G.

[hus]

Agree with your comment, it does cover a big range and still heaps better than the kit lens.

[TasEric]

UPDATE to my previous post:
After using this lens a LOT over the last month, I'm very happy with it.
The only minor inconvenience is that it has indeed "loosened up", and extends itself if pointed downwards.
However, I've now got into the habit of just turning the zoom to the 18mm position, and quickly flicking the lock on.
Unlocking it again for the next shot when I want to zoom out is just a matter of extending my finger and pressing the lock.
I'm very happy with the ability to almost instantly go from wide angle to tele, and haven't missed a shot yet - unlike the constant shot missing when juggling the kit lenses.
Very happy with the quality, speed of operation, etc.
Just had quite a few 12x8 prints done, and they are razor sharp - even when cropped.
Also has a couple of A2 prints done - excellent quality.
Sure - I've had some failures - but they are because I stuffed something up.
Haven't had the kit lenses on the camera since I bought the Tamron. that's gotta say something :-)

My Tamron 90 is sharper than this lens - but not by much.

[bconolly]

I've not long sold my 18-270 after taking it to China, Germany, Austria and the UK on a couple of trips.

I sold it because it was I was finding that I'm taking more shots at the wider end of the spectrum, not because the lens wasn't good. As a Nikon user, I found that the shots (for the same focal length) were a little less sharp than
my 18-55mm kit lens. VC was reasonable, although it can take a while to settle (led to a few blurry shots before I figured out what was going on). Auto focus is pretty speedy and certainly as good, if not better than the 18-55mm Nikon kit lens. I had terrible problems with dust getting into the camera around the lens mount, but that's not restricted to this lens (all my Tammy zooms seem to do this to me).

I sold it for just about what I paid for it, so in that sense it was a good investment as well. Overall it's hard to beat for the money.

BC

[arthurking83]

.....

The only minor inconvenience is that it has indeed "loosened up", and extends itself if pointed downwards.
.....

They all do.. either immediately(ie. Nikon 18-105VR or eventually .. Nikon 18-200VR) .. etc.

So far none of my f/2.8 zooms have this affliction, even tho they've all been used a fair bit.

I can get my 28-75mm/2.8 to extend when pointed down, but only if I either flick it in a way that it does so.


The very few images I have, taken with this lens in a very brief test session, I think the low light performance is exacerbated by the fact that it underexposes by about -0.7Ev too.

That is, set to the same exposure settings as any other lens(or good quality lens), the Tammy will underexpose the scene by about -0.7Ev. In low light and higher ISO requirement situation, if this happens you get increased noise in your images.
Most consumer grade lenses may do this, and I know my 18-105VR also does this.

How the Tammy focuses in know light is something I've never experienced, so I can't offer any comments on that side of the low light performance commentary.
Just remember both camera AND lens will work in combination with each other in such conditions!!