TAMRON 18-270mm ... A good walk-around lens?

[Matthias099]

I am still looking around for a good travel lens that doesn't break the budget too much. I found this TAMRON AF 18-270mm VC PZD Di-II.



Is anyone using this lens? What are your experiences? Has anyone compared this one to Nikon's 18-200mm?

Specifications
Model	B008
Focal length	18-270mm
Maximum aperture	F/3.5-6.3
Angle of view (diagonal)	75° 33'-5° 55'
Lens construction	16 elements, 13 groups
Minimum focus distance	0.49m (19.3 in)
Maximum magnification ratio	1:3.8 (at f = 270mm: MFD 0.49m)
Filter size	φ62mm
Length	88mm¹, ² (3.5 in)
Entire Length	96.4mm¹, ³ (3.8 in)
Diameter	φ74.4mm (2.9 in)
Weight	450g¹ (15.9 oz)
No. of diaphragm blades	7
Minimum aperture	F/22-40

Minimum aperture F/22-40

LOL, wat????

[Matthias099]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

LOL, wat????

That's right .....

Minimum Aperture F/22 ~ F/40 (18mm-270mm)

[ceremus]

Not so unusual, my 100-300 lens will stop down to f/32 at the short end and f/38 at the long.

Not that I've really found the need to go that high...

[dlambert]

I don't own that lens, but I played with it briefly at the camera store (mounted on a 50D, I believe). I'm sure you know that it's pretty challenging to get a zoom range like this in a single lens, so there are compromises in image quality -- you should be able to find all sorts of reviews to demonstrate that. My impressions playing with the lens were that the zoom action was a bit stiff, though I guess the alternative is to have it sliding open on its own all the time. It also seemed like the focus was fairly slow and prone to hunting, but again, that's based on a really quick session.

If you've got to cover that whole range with just one lens, I'm not sure you're going to find a better lens. Given the compromises, though, lots of people end up biting the bullet and carrying two (or more) lenses.

[kirbinster]

I had a Tamron 28-300 VC and it was a not very sharp and had blue fringing. Sold it and got a Nikon 28-300 VF that I love. Super sharp, but heavier and larger than Tamron. Bottom line is you pay for what you get. The Nikon is very sharp and lens correction when needed is handled very easily in Lightroom.

[Matthias099]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I had a Tamron 28-300 VC and it was a not very sharp and had blue fringing. Sold it and got a Nikon 28-300 VF that I love. Super sharp, but heavier and larger than Tamron. Bottom line is you pay for what you get. The Nikon is very sharp and lens correction when needed is handled very easily in Lightroom.

But isn't the Nikon 28-300 VRII really a FX lens?

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by Matthias099

But isn't the Nikon 28-300 VRII really a FX lens?

So is the Tamron 28-300, but what is your point? A lens that is designed for FX bodies will work perfectly on a DX body - the converse is not true. An FX lens is actually much better on a DX body as you are not using the edges of the lenses where there is typically the most distortion.

[scootermcq]

Nikon says f5.6 for autofocus.... it will probably still autofocus when zoomed to 270 @ 6.3 but might give ya some problems locking focus under challenging conditions.

[Biomech]

I have the Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3



Not the sharpest lens in the box by a long shot, but I use it as my all purpose holiday lens and it seems to do the job