Tamron 18-270 PZDVC F/3.5-6.3

[Alix]

Have you used this lens? I have a Canon 40D and thought it would be a great all-around lens for travel and great closeups of my grand kiddies. I'm wondering if it will be slow in low light situations, i.e., indoor. Your experience/comments will be most appreciated.

[rpcrowe]

Hi Alix,

Welcome to CiC. I have not used the 18-270mm lens but, I am wary about lenses with exceptionally wide focal ranges. Generally, although it is handy to have a "one lens does everything" solution; lenses of this focal range are often lacking in image quality, auto-focus apeed and contrast. The f/3.5 to f/6.3 aperture range is fairly slow, especially where you need the extra speed; in the longer focal ranges. As far as the aperture goes, although the f/3.5-6.3 range is pretty darn slow, I was fairly happy with the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. That is, I was happy with the lens until I began using other mid-range lenses such as the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8L. I could not go back to a slower lens with lower image quality despite the wider focal range allowed.

However, on the other hand, I know several folks who shoot with wide focal range lenses and like them. A fellow tour member fell and broke his Nikon and 18-200mm (I believe) lens in Xian, China. As soon as we arrived in Hong Kong, he replaced his camera and bought the identical lens. That shows how much he liked that set up.

Whether the 18-270mm lens is "good enough" is purely a subject opinion. I would do a google search to get the opinions of those who have used the lens. However, I would like to mention one caveat: viewing representative images of any lens on the internet is not necessarily a valid way to ascertain its quality. Most often, expensive lenses with a more moderate focal range are used by more experienced photographers. There are probably few beginners who are willing to drop a thousand or more dollars on their first DSLR lens. That means that the image samples submitted from more expensive lenses, might come from more experienced and perhaps better photographers. This IMO, would skew the image quality towards those lenses. An excellent photographer will produce better pictures using a cheap lens than a bad photographer using an expensive lens. But, an excellent photographer using a top-line lens will most likely produce better images than an equally gifted photographer using a lesser lens.

Along the same line, the opinions of other photographers regarding a lens must be filtered through an idea of that photographers experience and demand for high grade imagery. Although the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is a jack-of-All-Trades that does a lot of things good but, does nothing exceptionally well; you would never know that from the opinion of my son-in-law. I gave him my 350D with the 28-135mm lens and he thinks that this combination is the best thing since sliced bread. Of course, he is comparing it to the low-line P&S cameras or cell phone imagery that our daughter uses.

It all boils down to whether the individual photographer wants or needs a lens of this focal range. MY solution is to carry a pair of cameras with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS. It is a heavier and a lot more expensive solution to the age old problem of having a wide focal range but, it is a solution that I personally prefer. I cartainly would not recommend this option as a solution to all photographers.

If I were shooting with the 18-270mm lens, I would definitely want a hotshoe flash and a diffuser reflector to augment my shots in lower light situations...

[tclune]

As usual, Richard offers up some good sense on this topic. I have three zooms that I routinely use: a Tokina 12-24 f/4 wide angle; a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 standard focal length; and a Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR telephoto. I would just want to mention one thing that I find to be true -- I find that my approach to shooting is quite different when I'm using a wide-angle lens, a standard focal-length lens, or a telephoto lens. For me, changing the lens helps me "switch gears" for the style of shooting, too. I don't know whether other people find the same thing to be true, but for me it helps me think through the whole approach that I want to take to a given shot or series to physically switch lenses. FWIW

[koolkat]

Hi, I currently use this lens, not with the pizo motor, but the earlier model. Still with the 18x270 and its a good lens. As far as a one-lens-does-it-all, let me just say that its a very good mid priced lens that I'm glad i got, have used it extensively but look forward to an overall better optical quality. Attched is a shot I did at the local Zoo and I think its a good shot but always wonder what a "L" series lens will do now that I have a 7D. All in all, I'm please with the lens, I do think that beyond 200mm it gets a little soft. This shot is at 270mm / 1/160 /F6.3 ISO 400.

[koolkat]

OK, let's try that again,

[Dave Humphries]

I find that my approach to shooting is quite different when I'm using a wide-angle lens, a standard focal-length lens, or a telephoto lens. For me, changing the lens helps me "switch gears" for the style of shooting, too. I don't know whether other people find the same thing to be true, but for me it helps me think through the whole approach that I want to take to a given shot or series to physically switch lenses.

I do - except when I am using the 18-200 in a city, then any focal length is used to get 'the shot'.

For me it is usually that I can't "think macro" while I'm using the 18-200 or 70-300

[Dave Humphries]

OK, let's try that again,

Nice shot in difficult lighting Mike.

The focus might be slightly behind the eyes, more on the trunk and paws, but as presented, a little PP sharpen (after the downsize) would remove any difference between this and L glass at this size of web presentation.

L glass will help if you need to present larger, or especially for printing large.