DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II VC PZD, any experience with it?

DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/index.php)

- Art Discussion (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=78)

- - Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II VC PZD, any experience with it? (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76554)

Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II VC PZD, any experience with it?

Get my Nikon D3000 a few years back and am now looking at lenses for some more distance work.
This one was brought to my attention and looks like a good replacement for my 18-55 VR Nikon lens i have now.

Point is, i have never heard of Tamron and was wondering if any of you could tell me if this is a good one to pick.
Store price was €529,- might find it cheaper somewhere else tho.

Tamron is reputable, in the higher price range. Some people have noticed ghosting with the glass (in lower priced models) in hi-res images though.

Tamron lenses are mid range, "jack of all trade" lenses. On crop sensor cameras they are OK, on full frame I would not advise Tamron glass, due to CA/PF and distortion towards the edge of the glass.

At the end of the day, any lens which tries to cover a large focal range (in this case 18-270) is going to suffer optically. There is a a reason why higher-end lenses typically cover split focal ranges (eg 17-55, 70-200 etc). This ensure a better optical design than is possible when trying to cover the whole focal range with just one lens.

I'm not saying they are bad lenses (I'm a lens snob, and therefore rather biased!). Just don't expect stellar quality from it - especially towards the edges of the frame, and when using it wide open. You'll also struggle with the limitation of F6.3 at 270mm, especially as the lens is not stabilized (although I'm guessing you have in-body stabilization on your Nikon?). It will be tricky to get a sufficient shutter speed unless the light is good, and/or you really jack up the ISO.

Question is, do you need one lens that covers than entire focal range? If not, you might be better looking for a lens which covers 100-300 or similar, as that will have much better optical quality than an ultra zoom lens which also covers wider angle (under 70mm, down to 17mm).

I am going to use it for vacation.
Idea is that i have a 3 year old, a baby and everything that goes with that. (traveling wise)
1 Lens is a perfect solution for me as switching it back and forth wont be a good idea (beach, playground, water, ect ect)

I am aware of the limitations and concessions of this kinda lens. But for my use it seems like a good fit.

And this one has stabilization

Again, i know separate lenses are better, this is just for the ease of it.

Seems to be decent lens. Chroma noise is minimal.