Just Posted: Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Review

I have this lens. Here is my personal impression:
- Not having to change lenses really IS comfortable.
- Image sharpness is good enough for travel photography. No point in using this lens with 24MP, but on my Nikon D5000 it's sharp enough for everyday use.
- It is clearly in an inferior position compared to the AF-S Nikkkor 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 KIT zoom lens (which is not a top lens either), both with respect of image quality and minimum aperture at 270mm.
- My lens arrived with a strong zoom creep. I sent it in to be repaired. Nikon re-adjusted it without any hassle. Afterwards it was much better. Meanwhile zoom creep is noticable again, but remains acceptable.
- One disturbing thing not mentioned in the review, is, that bright out-of-focus lights can appear not as blurred disks, but as rings! This was prominent on several real-world photos of mine, (e.g. with trees in the background where the sky peeped through the leaves). If you need a pleasent background blur, choose another lens!

A Question (of somebody who has not a lot of experience) about "contrast".

On the amazon.com Website, I have read a user-review by "Naftade" of this Tamron zoom lense. Naftade was making comments on the "contrast". From that user-review I got the impression that zoom-lenses (and also other lenses?) where not all equal when it comes to their contrast behavior.

Is that impression correct? Can the difference between lenses on the subject of "contrast" be sufficiently significant to influence a buying decision? If this is the case, could future lense review also rate the contrast?

Thanks in advsance for an answeer and explanations.

Thanks for the review - very useful.

I'm beginning to lose faith in dxo. How can they give this milk bottle such a high rating? Looking at the real world samples, this lens doesn't resolve anywhere near the sensor resolution at any focal length.

Good grief! I thought the 18-300 was bad. This thing is a joke past 75mm.
Thanks for the review DPR.

A detail that I would like to see improved: In order to make it easy to compare the ratings of "Optical Quality", "Build Quality", ... of different zoom lenses, it is for me (and probably also for others) much simpler to have these ratings provided in form of a numerical values.

The graphical representation of the ratings (as provided in the review of the Tamron Lense) is surely nice; but it is not easy/convenient to compare graphs for two (or more than two) different lenses.

Therefore my suggestion: in future, could you please provide the ratings both in form of numerical values and in form of a graph?

Thanks in advance.

I wonder how the Pentax version of this lens will fare on a Pentax body, especially the K-5 IIs :)

The sample images actually look very good. I could see this lens being useful for a traveller or tourist. Also really like when DPR shoots samples in London as it's much more interesting than Seattle (a nice city, but not nearly as much history and cool sites).

I have one question about the tests: Why do all the lenses tested so far seem to have much worse sharpness on a D7000 compared to the 7D? The glass is basically the same as well as the sensor resolution.

Also, one request: Would it be possible to match the intermediate tested focal lengths? The 18-250 has 80mm and 135mm while the 18-270 has 100mm and 200mm.

99% of the people who buy this lens won't read a review about it, or even check to see if one exists. Instead, how about we review the types of lenses that enthusiasts use, you know, the people who actually read lens reviews.

Amazing why a few totally similar lenses cannot be compared to each other in one single review. This way, you have to dig around and line-up each and every one yourself. Whatever.

To make this kind of comparison worth while, we also need reviews of the Pana 14-140 and the similar Oly 14-150

Niels

The most interesting Tamron lens right now is the 24-70 2.8 VC followed by the 70-200 2.8 VC. Stabilized video with the normal zoom looks like a steadicam and and sharpness is quite good. Not as good as the Nikkor 24-70, but not too far off.

Let me guess... its sharp stopped down to f8, soft wide open, especially at the long end, and is only recommended if you need an all-in-one convenience lens.

Am i right?

Thanks for the review. Since test data are ready, please publish following lens review soon:

1. Canon EF-S 18-135mm STM
2. Sigma 18-200mm II DC OS HSM

Also, waiting for:

1. Canon 40mm STM
2. A group review of 18-105mm/125mm/135mm (Sony/Pentax/Canon/Nikon/Sigma)
3. A group review of 18-55mm
4. A group review of 55-200/250/300mm
5. A group review of 50mm f/1.8
6. A group review of 35mm f/1.8

Also, why dxomark does not show lens data for Sigma 18-250mm Macro? How does the resolution scale differ from that of dxomark limiting resolution profile (dxomark: 0-100, dpreview: 0-1875)?

What a piece of junk that isn't even as sharp as the lens it is replacing. How about a review of a real lens for a change?

3 Super zooms in a row???