Just bought a nikon d7100. thinking of buying the tamaron 18-270 pzd. Is this as sharp in the 18-140 range compared to the nikon 18-140 that comes as a kit.
2057616
I really cannot compare lenses since I use a Canon T5i but I started using the Tamron 18-270 lens with a Canon XTI. It was the only lens I took on my trip to Alaska and it did the job. Pictures were fantastic. Later using a Canon T3i I took it to Minnesota and captured amazing shots of bald eagles. The zoom worked like it should and all pictures were crisp and clean with great color. The focus is fast and accurate even in video mode. Hope this helps.
2057617
I've used the Tamron 18-270 for about 3 or 4 years on my Canon XTi and I love it! I can't compare it to a Nikon kit lens. It seems as sharp as my Canon kit lens though. If you can only carry one lens with you, this is the one. I now shoot with a Canon 6D with a 24-105mm Canon lens and it is noticeably sharper than the Tamron, but that may be because the 6D has a full-frame sensor. The Tamron will not fit my full-frame 6D so I can't compare the two lenses on the same camera body.
1192320
If you have a 16MP sensor camera or better then go with the 18-140mm. Its sharper than 18-200. Both of them focus quickly. If you have an old camera with less Megapixels then 18-200 will be better because the focal range, unless weight is an issue for you.
1609775
PD thank you for the great review. What do you guys think about the new Tamron 70-200mm ?
990750
I'm glad someone posted this question! It really has helped me decide to buy this lense too. I have the double kit with the other 2 lenses mentioned. I haven't used the 55 200 yet!! The weather is terrible and I'm afraid to take out the new camera. I do a LOT of indoor shooting of my kids and this lense sounds like it will work very nicely. I'm still blown away by the D5000. The pictures in just Auto mode with the 18 55 kit lense are night and day above my other cameras. I'm in heaven!
1372697
Dennis, It depends on what you deem effective. � I've shot mine wide open at f/4 but it may be a little soft in the corners for your liking, doesn't bug me. As long as you have plenty of light f/5.6 is pretty amazing with your subject at about 40-60 feet. f/8 is great as long as you have either the sun or if you don't mind pushing the ISO to keep you shutter speed above at least 1.5x the focal length. I find 1/500th-1/800th ish is plenty, and I don't have the hands of a surgeon by any means. Some of my sharpest images have come from this lens.On Full Frame I use it with the Tamron 1.4x TC to achieve the length you have already with the D7100 beinng DX. Dennis, It depends on what you deem effective. � I've shot mine wide open at f/4 but it may be a little soft in the corners for your liking, doesn't bug me. As long as you have plenty of light f/5.6 is pretty amazing with your subject at about 40-60 feet. f/8 is great as long as you have either the sun or if you don't mind pushing the ISO to keep you shutter speed above at least 1.5x the focal length. I find 1/500th-1/800th ish is plenty, and I don't have the hands of a surgeon by any means. Some of my sharpest images have come from this lens.On Full Frame I... » Read More Dennis, It depends on what you deem effective. � I've shot mine wide open at f/4 but it may be a little soft in the corners for your liking, doesn't bug me. As long as you have plenty of light f/5.6 is pretty amazing with your subject at about 40-60 feet. f/8 is great as long as you have either the sun or if you don't mind pushing the ISO to keep you shutter speed above at least 1.5x the focal length. I find 1/500th-1/800th ish is plenty, and I don't have the hands of a surgeon by any means. Some of my sharpest images have come from this lens.On Full Frame I use it with the Tamron 1.4x TC to achieve the length you have already with the D7100 beinng DX. « Show Less
1526808
Have not tried the tamron the cannon 24-70 2.8L II . Is a a purchase I'll never regret. It holds up against my friends zeiss primes plus blazing fast auto focus
1584168
The advantages that the Tamron 17-50 has over Canon 18-55 are it is faster by one f stop, much sharper, build quality is much better. The Tamron is the clear winner & is a nice affordable upgrade. The Canon 55-250 is sharp mid to telephoto a better match with the tamron 17-55 because of the sharpness. All the lenses are for crop sensors and are fully compatible the all Canon Rebel camera bodies.
1786216
For the D50 and D90 I'm partial to the 28-200. Got three from Tamron and one from Sigma and all were under $100 on Ebay. They AF quickly and are razorsharp. Most were bought attached to a cheapo camera like an N60 or a N2020.
845608
I just saw that the new model (pzd) is just 20 dollars more and its lighter. The old version is a great all around lens. I highly recommend it. Recently i bought the 17-50 2.8 VC which way sharper and brighter, but the zoom range of this one is amazing. Good luck
2158308
Don't know if Tamron makes the lens, but I am very pleased with the images produced. And I especially like the range 18-270 which gives me the maximum flexibility without having to carry 3, 4 or 5 lens.
833164
No. Its a crop sensor lens. Gives me nearly the same aspect on D7100 as Id get on FX body with the 70-200 2.8. Sigma and Tamron make great lenses for your needs, with a better price point over the Nikon glass. You (your clients) would be hard pressed to tell the difference! Good look and happy shooting. 500px.com\wellsjb1
1003721
This is a far superior lens. The sharpness is pretty impressive. I have used the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MK I and the Tamron is better than that one also. Haven't used the Canon MK II version yet but I am extremely happy with the Tamron
1927445
Jen, I don't recommend this lens. I owned it for a short while when I was new to photography, and was disappointed with its IQ. Zoom lenses that cover this long of a focal length generally sacrifice image integrity to do so. This lens was no exception with heavy barrel distortion on the wide end, and it was very soft when zoomed even when stopped down. I would recommend getting a lens that does less, but does it better. This lens would not be any better than your kit lens. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for its value and IQ.
1192321
Solid :: 18-200mm primarily because of build qulaity. Hence heavier and more expensive. Sharp is subjective here since you are comparing apples and oranges.. for example if it has to be at 140mm then 18-200mm is sharper than 18-140mm (boundary conditions). compare two lenses at same zoom range.. for example a canon or nikon or sigma (assuming all make 18-200mm.). Upto 18-120mm both are equally sharp... if using D3100 or cheaper camera none is sharp. These are sold by millimeters... make you choice based on the range you need.. 18-35/55/105/135/140/200/300... and price you willing to pay in terms of money or ergonomics/weight. Solid :: 18-200mm primarily because of build qulaity. Hence heavier and more expensive. Sharp is subjective here since you are comparing apples and oranges.. for example if it has to be at 140mm then 18-200mm is sharper than 18-140mm (boundary conditions). compare two lenses at same zoom range.. for example a canon or nikon or sigma (assuming all make 18-200mm.). Upto 18-120mm both are equally sharp... if using D3100 or cheaper camera none is sharp. These are sold by millimeters... make you choice based on the range you need.. 18-35/55/105/135/140/200/300... and price you willing to pay in... » Read More Solid :: 18-200mm primarily because of build qulaity. Hence heavier and more expensive. Sharp is subjective here since you are comparing apples and oranges.. for example if it has to be at 140mm then 18-200mm is sharper than 18-140mm (boundary conditions). compare two lenses at same zoom range.. for example a canon or nikon or sigma (assuming all make 18-200mm.). Upto 18-120mm both are equally sharp... if using D3100 or cheaper camera none is sharp. These are sold by millimeters... make you choice based on the range you need.. 18-35/55/105/135/140/200/300... and price you willing to pay in terms of money or ergonomics/weight. « Show Less
1784427
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies.
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
410989
Thanks for the information. I was using a Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walk around travel lens and loved it until it got stolen in an airport! :-( Now I'm in the market for a new lens and I'm leaning towards the Tamron. I've used their lens in my past photography life with my old AE-1 Program and I'd LOVE the 18-270 if I can swing the $$$. I'm hunting eBay as well, as that's where I got my 28-135 and had NO problems with it at all!