156 of 176 people found the following review helpful
Couldn't be more pleased,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I enjoy photography but am not a professional. I look forward to a professional review of this lens to examine the fine details, but regardless of how that turns out there is no doubt this will be the lens on my camera 90% of the time. The size, weight, range and build quality will simply allow me to take my camera more places and allow me to frame more pictures.
I also own 20mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 primes and a normal zoom Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. The 18-270mm PZD certainly won't replace the need for a good low-light indoor or portrait lens, but frankly I no longer see the need for the 17-50 VC. With recent DSLRs achieving good results (even dynamic range) at ISO3200 and even ISO6400 with raw post-processing, even a slower lens like this can get solid results (certainly up to 8x10). I do see a bit of barrel distortion when fully wide, but again that is fully corrected in post.
I take all my photos in raw and run everything batch through DXO - this workflow yields excellent results with this lens, but I suppose that the distortion and speed would be bothersome if I didn't do such post-processing or had an older body which couldn't do good HiISO. (frankly, as done with m43, I wish standard DSLR makers would also produce lenses which expressly take into account distortion correction possible via software. This could make for smaller lenses, but I digress)
Overall, this is an excellent, excellent lens. Great size and weight, very fast and quiet focusing even at 270mm when indoors in dim light...with easily correctable shortcomings (and frankly, I'm being a little bit of a pixel peeper...even without post-processing the images are very solid). For someone who has bought and sold many (non-L, yet not cheap) lenses over the years, this is a rare keeper. Excellent job Tamron! (although you might find me selling my 17-50VC now..)
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 8, 2011 7:05:50 AM PST
Hi, I'm looking for an walkabout lens - how would you compare it (if you can) to the Canon 18-200?
Posted on Jan 8, 2011 7:18:29 AM PST
Thanks for the review. I am wondering how this PZD version compares with the non-PZD 18-270mm version optically, especially the sharpness. Much improved, somewhat better, or about the same? For me, sharpness is important (well at this level as I use prime L's). Every review so far I could find seemed lacking of mentioning sharpness and per Tamron specifications, I saw mostly the size, weight and quietness improvement. I understood it might need sometime for guys who had both versions to share their experience. I'll be patient.
Posted on Jan 18, 2011 7:34:43 PM PST
How is it for manual focus? When I tried the non-PZD version I didn't like the the looseness of manual focus. Overall, it sounds like this version has overcome the main shortcoming I read about the previous version which was slow autofocus in low light situations. I'm encouraged by the report here of fast quiet autofocus.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2011 8:12:48 AM PST
I have the Nikon version and manual focus sucks. Way to loose and short throw. The PZD focus motor is fast, accurate and silent even in lower light. Hope that helps.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2011 6:08:11 PM PST
Thanks for the reply. I bought the lens and agree with your assessment. The autofocus is extremely quiet and seems fast. the manual focus seems fairly lame but no worse than on my Sigma 18-200 OS lens. Picture quality seems pretty good so far.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2011 6:12:23 PM PST
I'm so happy with mine I put my Nikkor 16-85mm VR on eBay today...
Posted on Mar 15, 2011 5:42:36 AM PDT
A more professional review on:
Posted on Apr 22, 2012 9:48:55 AM PDT
Michael DiDomenico says:
You mention having no need for the 17-50 VC, is that the 2.8 version? I have this lens for indoor and museums, will the 18-270 replace that?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 12:27:30 PM PDT
if you're asking me, the 16-85mm is not f/2.8 and the Tamron isn't fast either, so it probably isn't a good choice for museums
Posted on Jan 22, 2014 4:54:45 PM PST
Vernon L. Jenewein says:
I am glad that you had mentioned the Nikon 18-200 lens. I have my boss's old Nikon 18-200 that he is letting me try. It is the older model since it has a 72mm filter thread and the new one has the 62mm threads. I have a Sigma 18-250 HSM iwht the Optical Stabilizing and swapping between the two on pictures of our little Toy Fox Terriers I can visibly see that the Nikon is crisper and has better "brightness" over the Sigma. My other lens is an old 28-200 Tamron, which I still really like except for the ability of closer shots I get with the 18mm. Excellent review!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›