View Full Version : Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical IF Macro

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13th of November 2008 (Thu), 03:20
Could we get some wide open and narrow shots? and how's the VC when shooting at 270 handheld?

Info on this lens (http://www.letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=tamron+18-270)

15th of November 2008 (Sat), 11:07
Test drove one today.
some wide open shots at 18mm

and the VC at 270 is amazing. i was really jittery and this is how it turned out at 270...

16th of November 2008 (Sun), 02:23
Thanks for posting. Please post more pics! I am really really interested in this lens and am planning to use it as my walk around outdoor tourist lens.

16th of November 2008 (Sun), 04:08
my apologies, these are the only pictures i took of it.

17th of November 2008 (Mon), 21:18
Thank again for posting. I am hearing a lot of good things about the VC on this lens. I need all the help I can get when I take my vacation shots ;)
Will wait for more pix from other POTN members.

21st of November 2008 (Fri), 08:15
bought this lens today!! the VC is SICK. at 270 i had to actually move the camera to get the image to jump. i'll post some shots tomorrow (hopefully), both wide open and telephoto. 50mm/4.0 shoots NICE too.

24th of November 2008 (Mon), 10:30
Many thanks for posting these examples. I'm seriously considering this lens - it looks pretty impressive. If you could post some more examples it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again!

24th of November 2008 (Mon), 10:34
For those of you that have used this 18-270 lens and Tamron's 28-75 lens, could you please help me with this post (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=604662)?

Thanks very much! :)

24th of November 2008 (Mon), 10:46
I'm expecting my Tamron, this week I hope, and among the things I'll be doing with it, a comparison test will be done between it and the Sigma 18-200mm OS. I will be posting results of the test in a different thread, but sample photos will be added here. I'm eager to get some shots since there aren't a lot of samples with this lens. Hopefully my shots will be good enough to tell the tale of how good or bad the lens is.

There's another thread in which a member has said that his copy was not good, that he was having an issue with the VC throwing focus off. Hopefully this won't be the case with my version, and there won't be any other issues.

So, stay tuned boys and girls, hopefully soon I can get some shots up. If there's any requests for particular shots, let me know. We'll have the family over for Thanksgiving, so there's going to be plenty of people-shots to shoot if the lens comes in time, and I can always run out to the lake down the street for landscape and wildlife shots.

24th of November 2008 (Mon), 13:49
Well, looks like it won't be here in time for T-day. I just got the shipping notice today. But, in any event, when it gets here it will be put through its paces, and photos will be posted.

Stay tuned...

24th of November 2008 (Mon), 15:48
eagerly awaiting your test shots :)
(I have the VC softness problem)

24th of November 2008 (Mon), 20:47
Okay, the shipping notice updated, and it looks like I'll get it on Wednesday. Which will be perfect. If the day is clear, I'll run down to the lake and shoot some stuff, and it'll get enough use on Thursday with the family here that I should be able to get pics up by Thursday night or Friday morning.

Edit: I Googled the lens, to see if any more shots came up, and there are some customer shots on Amazon with the lens. They didn't look bad at all. You guys should jump over and check them out. Some are easy to see that he used a high ISO, but overall the shots look good.

Amazon Customer Pics (http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B001DYC0CS/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all)

They were shot on a Nikon body, but I'm sure they're indicative of what you can expect.

26th of November 2008 (Wed), 15:16
I got the lens today, and I can see what the issue is with the VC knocking focus out. On my other stabilized lenses, the OS/IS kicks on before focus is locked. On the Tamron, the VC kicks on after focus is achieved. A simple double-pump of the shutter assures focus. I'm used to the double-pump from using my Bigmos, so it's not an issue. So far my preliminary thoughts are that it's a capable lens, but I won't know full details until I give it the real-world run through.

Here are some preliminary shots. The first is with the onboard flash, and the only thing done was a crop, resize, and brightness/contrast.


This one was with the flash, and had the same done, crop, resize and brightness/contrast


This was was cropped. The focus point is on the bottom glaive, about between the bottom of the glaive and where the light reflection is.


These are both full-frame crops with nothing done. Top one is flash, bottom is not.



I will get some more shots done either later today or tomorrow. These were all at 18mm, with the VC on. I can easily tell that the VC can knock focus out, since it kicks on after focus is achieved. It's pretty evident, where on other stabilized lenses the actions are a lot closer together, with the focus taken pace after the OS/IS systems kick on. Also, there seems to be a lot going on internally, there's a lot of commotion now and then. But, focus is fast, and it is accurate. The only issue is the late VC kick, but a quick double-pump of the shutter alleviates that issue.

A few shots I took outside were iffy, and I'm still going over them to see what the problem was.

26th of November 2008 (Wed), 15:17
Here are two shots at 270mm. Both are the same shot, only one is resized 50%, and the other is the full frame crop.



26th of November 2008 (Wed), 15:19
If anyone has a suggestion of a good test subject, let me know. For the next few days I'll be limited by what's around the house, since the inlaws are coming in today, and tomorrow is "Eat like a pig and then pass out" day. So, any thoughts of what I can shoot are appreciated. I will shoot some family portrait shots with both the Tamron and the Sigma 18-200mm to compare the two.

26th of November 2008 (Wed), 15:40
Here are two shots, both at f/8, with the VC on and off. Both are full frame crops, and I used the same frame size and the same point of reference to frame the images, so they should be pretty close to identical in size. The top one is VC off, the bottom one is VC on.



26th of November 2008 (Wed), 16:18
So far - looking good!

It would be interesting to see a shot or two of moving subjects - just street traffic or something.

Thank again for your posts, katodog.

26th of November 2008 (Wed), 16:20
That's easier said than done, since our street is typically pretty quiet. But, I have plans to go down to the lake for some shooting in the next few days, so I can easily shoot some traffic while I'm out. I've been waiting for some birds to come out to my feeders, but since the arrival of the lens they're staying away. It's funny how the birds always know when you want to take their picture.

29th of November 2008 (Sat), 21:04
Sorting through a few test shots between the Tamron and Canon DO. The DO was at 240mm, I was eyeballing to get close to the 270mm.

Canon 70-300mm DO @ 240mm...


Tamron @ 270mm...


Info for both:

Model - Canon EOS 20D
Exposure Time - 1/800 seconds
F Number - 10
ISO - 400
Exposure - 1/800 seconds
Aperture Value - F 10.00
Exposure Mode - Auto
White Balance - Auto

Both photos straight from camera, full-frame crops, no processing. Pardon my sensor dust.

29th of November 2008 (Sat), 21:19
Here's a shot from the Tamron with a little processing. A very slight sharpening in PSP and a pass through Noiseware. Normally you'd expect to process some photos anyway, so this shows that the Tamron is capable of producing satisfying pictures.


Here is one of the original shots reduced 50%, click on the pic for the full-size shot.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Tamron%2018-270mm%20VC/Reduced50.jpg (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Tamron%2018-270mm%20VC/Full.jpg)

29th of November 2008 (Sat), 21:28
Two more. This is shooting through my patio door, and this is pretty much the same type of shot I get from all my lenses shooting through the glass. I'm no pro, but if I can shoot different lenses and get decent results, I'm happy.


Full-frame crop


This type of shot I might sharpen, I might not. It depends on what mood I'm in. Typically I'll leave these the way they come out of the camera, since everyone who sees them usually says they look great. I think they're okay, but I don't complain much anyway, so even if they were crap, I'd probably like them. I'm easy to please.

29th of November 2008 (Sat), 22:18
Katodog, your pictures look great.
I've been spending the holidays in Tampa and so far I've shot about 1000 pictures. But I haven't downloaded them yet, only after I return home. Then I'll have a better overall opinion about my copy.

30th of November 2008 (Sun), 02:52
Thanks again, katodog. Good shots! I'm now leaning heavily in favour of the Tamron vs the Canon DO.

30th of November 2008 (Sun), 13:29
One from today with the Tamron


30th of November 2008 (Sun), 14:11
Shots of a license plate on the playground car at the mall.

Full shot reduced to 40%


Full Crop


A few of the decorations and of Santa. I think this lens makes a great walk-around lens, since any shots that come out soft can be easily fixed. The color and sharpness seems to be pretty good to me. These shots are untouched except for resizing.



The decoration was at 18mm f/4, and looks to have a pretty nice depth of field to it. The Santa shot was at 23mm f/4, and it looks like sharpness was lost a bit around his feet mostly, but the overall shot could work perfectly with the slightest processing.

30th of November 2008 (Sun), 23:28
Very interesting lens. The samples look better than I thought they would.

1st of December 2008 (Mon), 08:37
Oddly, they look better than I expected them to look, too. I guess I'm on the same boat as others who thought that maybe Tamron was biting off more than they could chew, making a lens with such a long zoom range and stabilization. But, so far it looks like they did okay. I figure if my shots come out decent straight from the camera, spending a minute to process the ones that need it isn't a bad thing.

So far I've been very pleased. Now, the hard part is trying to figure out if I want to keep the Sig and Canon. The ranges overlap almost identically, so it would be silly to keep them, but it's so hard to let them go.

1st of December 2008 (Mon), 13:32
I posted some macro comparisons between the Tamron and the Sig 18-200mm OS on Cloudy Nights, and I figured the shots would be helpful here as well. I think the Sig is much sharper, but these aren't professional technical shots, so keep that in mind. However, taken at face value, the Sig looks much better.

Sigma 18-200mm OS @ 200mm


Tamron 18-270mm VC @ 200mm. The Tamron presents a slightly larger image at 200mm than the Sig does. I'm not an optical genius, so I couldn't explain why. I tried to crop the pics to the same size.


Looking back at the exif info, I guess I should have put the camera on manual and set it so nothing change exposure-wise. Didn't think about it until now.

2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 10:40
Just got this lens as a gift. This is the first super zoom and VC(IS) I have owned. He are a few shots of the first time I took it out. Thus far I am very pleased with the results. The only comperable lens I have owned is a Canon 28-105 3.5/4.5

All shots are RAW with no PP. Only exported from Adobe Light Room with no sharpening.

Wide Open (18mm)

Zoomed (270mm)

3rd of December 2008 (Wed), 12:38
DPreview has tested this Tamron lens recently:

www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/ (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/)

4th of December 2008 (Thu), 08:09
a few untouched except for shrinkage.

these aren't meant to show off any kind of skills, just bokeh shots.

5th of December 2008 (Fri), 15:05
Tahnksgiving trip to Florida. Took the Tamron.


5th of December 2008 (Fri), 15:54
some very excellent shots, especially through that junk lens you have. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Smileys/36_1_20.gif

5th of December 2008 (Fri), 16:00
:D haha! thanks.
Well, I shot a lot of pictures and there are many really good ones.
However, there were unfortunately quite a few that had focus problems and softness, and quite often the problem was unexplainably inconsistent.
So I returned the lens for exchange. I should get a new one next week.
I'll update.

5th of December 2008 (Fri), 19:55
after owning my copy for about 2 weeks, it started giving me the "err 01" code saying bad communication between lens and body, took the lens back to the store, they exchanged it without question.

7th of December 2008 (Sun), 22:59
Any more sample pics?

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 07:51
night shoot with 430EX II on the shoe... the dirty white one is mine.
only editing was for size.

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 09:22
Looks good...

Anyone have some "people shots" they can share?

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:08
I'll post some for you when I get home for lunch. I just shot 1200 pictures last week, most of them are kids running around etc. The focus wasn't always 100% accurate though...

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:33
I just shot 1200 pictures last week, most of them are kids running around etc.
Perfect. Exactly what I'd use the lens for. Thanks!

The focus wasn't always 100% accurate though...
Oh.... that's not good. Especially with fast moving kids.

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:42
The focus wasn't always 100% accurate though...

Oh.... that's not good. Especially with fast moving kids.

Well, in his defense, have you ever seen slow-moving kids? I know I've seen the signs for them, "Slow Kids Ahead", but I've never actually seen one.

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 11:05
Soundsgood, don't worry, it's not that bad.
I'm just really particular when it comes to picture quality and pixel peep more often than I should. The focus problems I mentioned are only visible at 100%, and shot under bad lighting conditions.

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 11:06
Nevertheless, I've sent the lens back to the dealer for an exchange hoping for a better copy :)

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 11:14
I'm just really particular when it comes to picture quality...
Same here. I'm trying to decide between this lens and a Canon 24-105. I know that the 24-105 is a better (and more expensive) lens, but the thought of having 18 to 250mm without changing lenses is intriguing. However.... if I'm not happy with the image quality and/or focus speed I won't use the lens -- which of course would defeat the purpose of buying this lens. :)

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 12:41
I just found this over on DP Review:

"If you often find yourself shooting things which move then this may not be the ideal choice, but if you're willing to put up with its somewhat sluggish focusing it's a remarkably rewarding lens for the money."

Here's the link (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp)

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 14:32
Here are a few more Tamron 18-270 shots.
The lens is remarkably sharp in teh mid focal lengths, decent at the wide angle and kinda soft at the tele end. Just like DPreviews concluded.

All photos Canon 40D, all are originally JPGs (not RAW)

154mm F/5.6 1/25sec ISO1600


20mm F/5.6 1/640 ISO-100, Slightly out of focus subject

Same but 100% crop:

91mm F/5 1/30 ISO-1600 some PP done:

Same pic, 100% crop no PP:

25mm f/4.5 1/800 ISO-100

same pic, 100% crop:

91mm f/6.3 1/200 ISO-100, nice sharpness, 100% crop


8th of December 2008 (Mon), 14:36
here's a nice macro:


100% crop with Flash 100mm f/5.6 1/60 ISO-400

just one more

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 15:58
Those shots aren't bad at all. Being a stickler for sharpness is a good thing, but there'd be nothing wrong with those pics if they were printed. Most people would look at those and say they were perfect.

It's when we start picking on ourselves, because we know that the shots could be better, that the images suffer. Sometimes we have to stop thinking like photographers, and start thinking like everyone else.

8th of December 2008 (Mon), 16:18

9th of December 2008 (Tue), 13:28
Another detailed Tamron 18-270mm review with test (from Photoreview.com):


10th of December 2008 (Wed), 15:16
My second Tamron 18-270mm lens arrived today. It was an exchange of the first copy.
Based on the 50 or so test shots, I can already tell that this second copy does not have focus problems, or softness due to VC operation.

My first lens was serial # 8xxx this second one is # 12xxx

So I put my support fully behind this lens now. My first copy had those problems mentioned above but I stuck with the model and had it exchanged because otherwise it's a nice do-it-all lens.

So I owe an "apology" to this lens since I raised doubts in a couple of threads based on my bad first copy.
I thought I'd post this update. I'll post it in the other Tamron 18-270mm threads where I had mentioned the problems my first copy had.

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 19:29
A few more test shots. I was bored and got the lens out on the 10D and figured the best way to test sharpness was on sharp subjects, like knives.




10th of December 2008 (Wed), 19:45
Another of an ornament. Processed only for exposure and color, no sharpening done.


10th of December 2008 (Wed), 19:49
lol... definately makes sense.

anyone tested this thing on a full frame? or are these all crops?

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 19:52
Another of an ornament. Processed only for exposure and color, no sharpening done.

Something's missing from this shot... what is it?

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 19:57
The Coke bottle. I don't have a clue where it is, or I'd glue it back on. Of course, I haven't really looked for it, but it does kinda ruin the effect.

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 20:04
Another, and yes, I'm bored...

And all my shots are on crop cameras, 10D and 20D.


10th of December 2008 (Wed), 20:51
This lens won't work on a full frame. DPreview did a review on the lens and they even encluded a test photo from the lens on a FF camera. Serious vignetting, it does not cover the full frame at any focal length.

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 20:57
Anyone use this lens with 50D yet? Not sure if i should sell my 28-135 which i like and get this lens instead as my everyday.

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 21:02
poopy, that sucks for whenever i upgrade to a 5D, oh well, i guess selling the tamron will help pay for the 5d :D

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 21:13
two quick shots. Bad lighting, hand held, higher ISO, so far from ideal conditions

100% crop, JPG fine, 59mm, f/5, 1/40, ISO-400, nothing done to it just cropped.


100% crop, RAW DPP conversion (default settings) 46mm, f/4.5, 1/100, ISO-800


10th of December 2008 (Wed), 22:27
I'm on an iphone so the quality is not great -- but those two shots look pretty good.

11th of December 2008 (Thu), 02:53
Iz request 50D pix with 18-270!!!!

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 11:31
I received the new issue of Popular Photography yesterday. They've tested both the Canon 18-200 IS and the Tamron 18-270. It's not a comparison test, they are two separate tests in the same issue.

Anyway, they like 'em both. However, what surprised me was that according to their tests (SQF) the Canon performed a little better regarding sharpness, especially around 200mm. This pretty much contradicts test pictures I've seen on Lightrules' Super Zoom shootout test site. The Tamron is VERY sharp between about 25-90mm (based on my test pics, DPreview, as well as Lightrules' pics), so I was expecting better test results form POP Photo in those FLs. Maybe they had a Tamron copy like I did before I exchanged it for one with a better focus.
On the other hand the Tamron handled vignetting much better.
But like I said, they praised both.

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 11:37
...what surprised me was that according to their tests (SQF) the Canon performed a little better regarding sharpness...
I've seen several posts where people said they found the Canon to be sharper. That, and faster focusing.

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 15:24
yeah, faster focusing is a fact. My Canon 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS focus faster too.
As for sharpness, I'm not convinced the Canon is sharper, based on pictures I've seen.

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 15:29
Here's one from my new Tamron, RAW but sharpened just a bit in ACR

39mm f/5.6, 1/125, ISO-400, 100% crop from center


Jim Holtz
12th of December 2008 (Fri), 15:33
yeah, faster focusing is a fact. My Canon 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS focus faster too.
As for sharpness, I'm not convinced the Canon is sharper, based on pictures I've seen.

I've been following 18-270 VC threads with great interest. I have a 18-55IS and a 55-250Is and would like to replace the 18-55IS with a walk around lens that doesn't give up anything image quality wise and is as good as the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS to125mm or so. Have you compared the 18-270 to the 18-55IS and 55-250IS.

BTW, I've followed LightRules tests closely. I'm just curious what your experience has been.



12th of December 2008 (Fri), 15:51
Oh yes, I have. If I consider 18-125mm, my impression is that the Tamron gives up a little bit at the widest angle focal lengths. Corner sharpness is surprisingly good with the 18-55mm Canon. The Tamron is s little softer in the corners. But once you reach 30-40mm or higher I think the Tamron is pretty much as sharp as the 18-55mm.

Edit: having looked at at my testshots below, I have to say that the Tamron doesn't really give up much if anything at the wider angles to the Canon 18-55 IS. At least as far as the center crops are concerned.

125mm is still nicely sharp with the Tamron. It gets progressively softer above 200mm or so, 270mm is visiby softer than the 55-250mm at 250mm.
Focusing is slower than either Canon.

I still haven't decided if I should sell my 18-55 / 55-250 combo. I'll try to keep them if I can afford to keep them along with the Tamron.

I will take some direct comparison shots on a tripod in a minute. This is fun :)

Jim Holtz
12th of December 2008 (Fri), 16:19
Oh yes, I have. If I consider 18-125mm, my impression is that the Tamron gives up a little bit at the widest angle focal lengths. Corner sharpness is surprisingly good with the 18-55mm Canon. The Tamron is s little softer in the corners. But once you reach 30-40mm or higher I think the Tamron is pretty much as sharp as the 18-55mm.

125mm is still nicely sharp with the Tamron. It gets progressively softer above 200mm or so, 270mm is visiby softer than the 55-250mm at 250mm.
Focusing is slower than either Canon.

I still haven't decided if I should sell my 18-55 / 55-250 combo. I'll try to keep them if I can afford to keep them along with the Tamron.

I will take some direct comparison shots on a tripod in a minute. This is fun :)

Excellent! I'm looking forward to seeing your comparison pictures! 100& crops would be awesome!


12th of December 2008 (Fri), 16:45
Since it's kind of dark outside (it is most of the time in winter in Ohio) I just did some quick tests. They didn't come out very good, but I'll do better ones tomorrow.
All of the ISO-400 no noise reduction. RAW converted in Adobe Camera Raw, default sharpness (which is kinda soft), auto levels correction applied on the whole image then center cropped.
100% crops

Canon kit lens 18mm f/3.5

Tamron 18mm f/3.5

Canon kit 18mm f/5.6

Tamron 18mm f/5.6

Canon kit 34mm f/5.6

tamron 35mm f/5.6

Canon 55-250mm, 55mm f/5.6

Tamron 55mm f/5.6

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 17:14
125mm is still nicely sharp with the Tamron. It gets progressively softer above 200mm or so
Hmmm. In that case, I almost wonder if the Canon 18-200 is a better bet than the Tamron 18-270. The advantage of the Tamron is the extra reach over 200mm... but if it gets progressively softer above 200mm, is that really an advantage?

Personally, I decided to pull the trigger on a Canon 24-105 today. Yeah me! :) I've been wanting to try one for a LONG time, and since a decent price came along I grabbed it. I can always sell it if I'm not happy.

I'm still very intrigued by the range of these super-zooms. I'm just not sure which is a better way to go -- Canon 18-200 or Tamron 18-270.

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 17:45
It is softer at the tele end, but it's not that bad.
Here are two examples. These were shot RAW and I did PP too.
The Nifty-Twofifty is sharper at the tele end. The Tamron required a little more sharpening in Photoshop. But the final results are comparable.

Moon through Canon 55-250mm IS. At 250mm

Moon through Tamron 18-270mm. At 270mm

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 18:52
Tamron looks sharper with mider zooms but the canon seems sharpet at 18..

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 19:02

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 19:15
So, speaking of 18mm, some more testshots. I hope nobody's getting sick of this yet.

- At f/3.5 the Canon may be a bit sharper
- However, stopped down to f/5.6 they are equal, maybe the Tamron is a bit sharper. I did "blinking" tests switching between layers looking at them at 200%.
- The Tamron is a tiny bit wider at 18mm than the Canon at 18mm (onyly a hair)

These test images have been sharpened in Adobe Camera Raw.
Please note that I'm comparing center sharpness only.

Canon 18mm, f/3.5

Tamron 18mm, f/3.5

Canon 18mm, f/5.6

Tamron 18mm, f/5.6

Jim Holtz
13th of December 2008 (Sat), 00:06

Excellent comparisons photos! The 18-55IS has an edge wide open at 18 but it looks like the 18-270 is the equal or better at 18 stopped down and at 35 and 55. If you're not worn out by all this, I'd really enjoy seeing how the Tammy compares to the 55-250IS at 70, 100 and 125 or so. 18 - 125 is the walk around range I'm really looking for that no one does a good job of filling.

Thank you for your efforts! I appreciate it!


13th of December 2008 (Sat), 02:23
Many thanks, gabebalazs, for taking the trouble to post these shots. To my (admittedly amateur) eye the Tamron looks pretty much equal to the Canon - and in some cases, arguably better.

Shopping on Monday, I think! :lol:

13th of December 2008 (Sat), 09:44
thank you.

Now, here are some real world comparison between the Canon 55-250IS and the Tamron 18-270

- 100% center crops
- Aperture: f/5.6 (except Tamron at 270mm, where it is f/6.3)
- Aperture Priority mode
- IMAGE STABILISATION ON for both lenses (Tamron is a little better IMHO)
- hand held (shutter times were roughly between 1/200 and 1/500
- Some sharpening in ACR, no other PP

Please note that it was impossible to match focal lengths accurately due to the primitive FL scale on the lenses.

Canon at 55mm

Tamron at 55mm

Canon at 90mm

Tamron at 91mm

Canon at 116mm

Tamron at 119mm

13th of December 2008 (Sat), 09:48

Note: at 200mm the Tamron might have had some focusing inaccuracy. It's just a little softer than the other images would suggest.

I was positively surprised that at max focal length the Tamrom is not much behind the Canon.

Canon at 194mm

Tamron at 200mm

Canon at max FL, 250mm

Tamron at maximum FL, 270mm

13th of December 2008 (Sat), 10:18
Looks pretty darn close to me.

Jim Holtz
13th of December 2008 (Sat), 11:41

Thank you for the excellent comparison! That is exactly what I was looking for. It sure looks like the 18-270 holds its own extremely well up to about 100mm or so where the 55-250IS starts to pull ahead a bit. It does appear that the 18-270 is sharper at 270mm than it is at 200mm which I find interesting.

Again, thank you for for posting the comparision. More to think about! :)


13th of December 2008 (Sat), 11:59
You're welcome. Good luck.

13th of December 2008 (Sat), 13:45
Thanks for the comparison, I have been looking at those two lenses.

15th of December 2008 (Mon), 12:04
If we compared corner sharpness, the two Canons would pull ahead more I think.

Since I own all three lenses my opinion is that if you're okay with changing lenses or you don't change lenses often then the 18-55IS/55-250IS combo is a better option. They are cheaper combined than the Tamron and overall are a bit better optically.

Still, I needed a walkaround lens and I used to change lenses too frequently. Plus I was able to get the Tamron on Ebay with 25% MS Live cashback. So it cost me only $450.00. At that price it's worth it IMHO.

20th of December 2008 (Sat), 11:20
had a track day today, lots of chances to use the 18-270. the full size pics are up on my flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stetsonaw) comments are appreciated, hope yous likes.

23rd of December 2008 (Tue), 02:44
Just a few shots with this lens:




23rd of December 2008 (Tue), 02:52
ok a few more:



23rd of December 2008 (Tue), 08:25
Nice shots. I wish I had that kind of weather... then I could go out and take some pics. Unfortunately it's been -2 to 10 F in the last few days here.

23rd of December 2008 (Tue), 09:30
Impressive. How much Post Processing was done on these?

23rd of December 2008 (Tue), 14:44
I was hoping that these pictures can show the range of the lens, from buildings to macro. All in all a great lens. A perfect "vacation lens". On the wide end, it can't compete with my Tokina 11-16, and on the macro side, my Sigma 150 wins. But I found the image that it produces on both ends are totally useable. I only did some minor processing on them in Picasa.

25th of December 2008 (Thu), 12:16
I was hoping that these pictures can show the range of the lens, from buildings to macro. All in all a great lens. A perfect "vacation lens". On the wide end, it can't compete with my Tokina 11-16, and on the macro side, my Sigma 150 wins. But I found the image that it produces on both ends are totally useable. I only did some minor processing on them in Picasa.

Look like this lense is almost equal with Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

I still haven't decide to get either one but will look into the price of this 2 .
I strongly believe that taking a multi-feature lense will have some sacrify in term of clarity , smoothness but for vacation lense.

SuperZoom + Marco or even a wide angle lense fit in almost 90% scenerio..hahah:) 1 thumd to Tamron.bw!

25th of December 2008 (Thu), 12:50
here are a couple of new pics, mainly crops. I'm fairly happy with the sharpness.

All of them (except last one) shot in RAW converted in DPP (sharpness at default 4)

100% crop, 65mm, f/5, iso100

100% 18mm, f/4.5, iso100

100% crop, 77mm, f/5, iso100

100% crop, 35mm f/6.3, iso100

100% crop, 270mm, f/6.3 (that's wide open), iso100

resized image from jpg, 18mm, f/5.6

25th of December 2008 (Thu), 19:58
If you are using this lens outside in bright light it shines, BUT if you are inside there just is not enough light captured. I was very frustrated at a band concert. I attempted to take pictures with available stage lighting, but movement caused too much blur. At 200-270 it is f6.3 wide open. I sold it and got a Sigma 70-200 non-IS and non-macro instead.

26th of December 2008 (Fri), 16:26
If you are using this lens outside in bright light it shines, BUT if you are inside there just is not enough light captured. I was very frustrated at a band concert. I attempted to take pictures with available stage lighting, but movement caused too much blur. At 200-270 it is f6.3 wide open. I sold it and got a Sigma 70-200 non-IS and non-macro instead.

If you need something in low light, then I guess you pick the wrong lens to start with, not that there is anything wrong with that lens itself. No f4 lens can do well in a concert!

26th of December 2008 (Fri), 16:45
Exactly. If I had to shoot a concert, I'd probably take my 50 f/1.8. But for a vacation/walkaround lens it's pretty good.

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 04:23
Exactly. If I had to shoot a concert, I'd probably take my 50 f/1.8. But for a vacation/walkaround lens it's pretty good.

Hi Gabebalazs,

I also looking at this lense from Canon Canon EF-S 18-200 mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS (http://mghong.blogspot.com/2008/10/canon-ef-s-18-200-mm-135-56-is-wishlist.html)
is it worth to go for it ?

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 08:02

If you are debating between the Tamron 18-270 or the Canon 18-200 I don't think there is a bad choice.

If you shoot moving subjects more often and/or in lower light situations I'd recommend the Canon with its faster more reliable auto focus.
The Tamron is weaker in the AF department, but it has its advantages in certain areas. It generally has less CA than the Canon, and it is a bit sharper in the lower mid zoom range. Light falloff is also better with the Tamron. However, towards the tele end the Canon is sharper. Even though the Tamron goes to 270mm, it is softer at the tele end.

Distortion: Tamron is a little better at wide end, but Canon is better a bit in mid and tele.

The Tamron has 6 years warranty, the Canon has 1 year.

Check out Lightrules' super zoom comparison test if you haven't done so:


If you end up choosing the Tamron, make sure you have a sharp, well focusing copy of the lens. I had to send back my first copy. My second one is good.

There are a few reviews out there. DPreview did one, Pop Photo did one, and an Australian magazine did one also. The one Popular Photography did, I'm not sure if they had a sharp copy. Their resolution tests were a bit subpar compared to DPreviews', Lightrules', or my own experience.

good luck.
If I had to choose again, I'm not sure which one I'd get. There is a $50 rebate here in the US on the Canon.

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 09:29
Even though the Tamron goes to 270mm, it is softer at the tele end.
This kinda bugs me. On one hand, the Tamron goes to 270 while the Canon only goes to 200... but if the Tamron is softer beyond around 200, does the extra reach of the Tamron really mean as much? If not, the Canon might be the better pick. Tough call.

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 09:43
yes, it's a tough call.
I think I'll do an interesting test. I'll take a picture with my 55-250 at 200mm. Then I'll take the same subject with the Tamron at 270mm then resize it to match 200mm image. Then I'll compare the IQ. Now, I don't have the 18-200IS so I have to make do with my 55-250IS which is better in terms of IQ than the 18-200IS.
Still, it's gonna be interesting...

Jim Holtz
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 10:35
yes, it's a tough call.
I think I'll do an interesting test. I'll take a picture with my 55-250 at 200mm. Then I'll take the same subject with the Tamron at 270mm then resize it to match 200mm image. Then I'll compare the IQ. Now, I don't have the 18-200IS so I have to make do with my 55-250IS which is better in terms of IQ than the 18-200IS.
Still, it's gonna be interesting...

I'm looking forward to seeing your comparisons.

Have you shot any flash pictures with the 18-270? I'm curious how well is does in that situation since I'm primarily interested in replacing my 18-55IS with a lens that equals or exceeds IQ in the 18-125 range. I'll keep my 55-250IS for situations where it works well. It's too darn good of lens to get rid of. But, I'd like my walk around lens to have as good of IQ from 55-125 as the 55-250.

Snap away! I like looking at your pictures and comparisons.


27th of December 2008 (Sat), 10:44
this was at 270, just to give you an idea

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 12:46
Here are some more tele photos comparing the Canon 55-250IS and the Tamron 18-270VC

I screwed up and accidentally took the Canon photos at 250mm instead of the promised 200mm. In the meantime outside conditions deteriorated so I can't redo it.

But I'm posting the pics anyway.
Tamron f/6.3 (wide open)
Canon f/5.6 (wide open)

100% crops from center

No PP,

ISO200, RAW, DPP sharpness at 4 (default)

Canon at 250mm

Tamron at 270mm

Canon 250mm

Tamron at 270mm
NOTE: the closer the subject is, the Tamron is losing its 20mm advantage in magnification due to focus shift(?), basically the closer it has to focus, the smaller the focal length. This firehydrant was about 30 yards away.

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 12:54
Here are two full frame, resized images.
Resized with "Bicubic Sharper" method (best for reduction)
All these shots were handheld with stabilization ON.



27th of December 2008 (Sat), 12:56
Now I'm gonna go and enjoy the rare 65 degree weather, go to a park and take some photos with the Tamron.

27th of December 2008 (Sat), 18:04
Some pictures from my walk in the park with the Tamron. These are obviously post processed.



Note: this was taken with my Canon 50 f/1.8

This one was handheld:



27th of December 2008 (Sat), 18:05
and an interesting one:


28th of December 2008 (Sun), 11:39
Here is the result of my experiment, where I took a test photo with the Canon 55-250IS at 200mm, then same subject with Tamron at 270mm then resize it to match 200mm.

Stabilization ON for both lenses, handheld.

RAW, ACR conversion, then I measured the height of the lamp. Then resized the 270mm Tamron image so the lamp became the same pixel height on both images (essentially making the Tamron match 200mm of the Canon).

I used "Bicubic Sharper" method, PS says that's best for reduction of image.

Both lenses stopped down 1 stop from their wide open setting at their respective focal lengths. (Canon at f/6.3, Tamron at f/8 )

Here are the results. The resized Tamron image is sharper and has better contrast a little bit. I own both lenses, I like both of them, so there is no bias toward either one.

I don't know how the new Canon 18-200mm IS compares to the Canon 55-250IS at 200mm IQ wise, but I thought I'd compare my Canon's 200mm image to a resized Tamron 270mm.

Canon at 200mm, 100% crop from center:

Tamron, originally shot at 270mm then resized to 200mm magnification:

Jim Holtz
28th of December 2008 (Sun), 15:16
Very interesting! The 55-250IS seems to be sharper around 135mm based on your previous tests but the 18-270 has an advantage at 200mm using the resize method. I wonder how it would stand up if it was also shot at 200mm without the resizing?


28th of December 2008 (Sun), 16:36
I was going to sell my lens, since I didn't think I'd use it as much as the others. But, I now decided to keep it. I took it out to the local zoo and shot with it. Here are some results...

These were all manual focus, since I was shooting through fencing and the AF wouldn't lock on what I wanted it too. The frog shot was through glass, hence the haze. No processing was done to any pictures. All are full frame crops, and you can click the picture to see the full image. Actually the full image is slightly smaller than the true size. I used a 2MB upload size, and these are 3MB files. The crops don't look all that bad, and the full images look real good. Once I process the shots they'll look a thousand times better.

But, it's not easy to process shots unless there's something to process. At least in these shots there's a great starting point.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/HawkFFCrop.jpg (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_6363.jpg)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/FrogFFCrop.jpg (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_6572.jpg)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/FoxFFCrop.jpg (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_6411.jpg)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CoyoteFFCrop.jpg (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_6448.jpg)

28th of December 2008 (Sun), 19:18
Nice shots katodog.
I'm really happy with my second Tamron copy. Of course it's a compromise optically but I think it's a pretty good one.

I know I've posted a bunch of pictures already in this thread, but the more the merrier.

So here are to 100% crops of a squirrel carrying nest material.
- 270mm, subject about 8-10 yards away, f/8

RAW processed with ACR, no PP

RAW processed through DPP, no PP

And here is a 50% cropped, resized, framed shot, ACR, some PP:

50% cropped, resized, DPP, some PP

28th of December 2008 (Sun), 20:40
The shots I just put up weren't all that spectacular, but manual focus through cages is a pain in the neck. It's still obvious, though, that the lens can produce shots that I would consider to be better than "good enough". I would say they're perfect, but what image ever is straight from the camera. My conditions pretty much sucked, since most of the shots I wanted put the Sun in the worse possible spot. I was getting too much back light from it, and I should have put the camera on M and did the exposures myself.

But, on a good note, the shots I took weren't ruined by the conditions. There is still a ton of great images, all they need is the slightest hint of processing. Here's a few that I did a little Lightroom and PSP on, just a little adjustment for exposure in Lightroom and sharpening (Radius=1, Strength=75, Clipping=0) in Paint Shop Pro....



Given the direction of the Sun, and the fact that the ducks were all in the water, which was in a cutout in the ice (plenty of reflection to ruin the exposure), the shots all came out great. I just hit a few here and there with some minor processing and they're perfect keepers for me. As far as the lens goes, I think it would be perfect if the lighting was better. I was hoping for better shots today, and that's why I used the Tamron all day. But, the reflections from the ice and everything else made it difficult for a good test.

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 09:05
Good shots! It's not easy to shoot against the sun and have good shadow detail.

Last night I was messing with the low light AF capabilities of my Tamron. Low light, plus 270mm is indeed a challenge but it's not as bad as I've read on different forums, mainly people with Nikon bodies.

Here is an example. This picture was taken at 270mm, f/8, ISO 1600, 1 sec (!) exposure, handheld (!). So you can imagine the amount of light I had in the room, very little to say the least.

Of course the original image is noisy and soft, but with PP it is pretty usable given the circumstances.
It's cropped (about 40% of image cropped out), and resized.

Focus was on the black and white pattern of the Native American pottery.


29th of December 2008 (Mon), 09:13
Handheld? Very nice.

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 09:44
Well... to be honest I was lying on the couch, so I cheated. I was still hand holding the camera though. :)

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 09:55
Yup, the shadows are what killed most of my shots for the day. Although they were all great shots, without the Sun interfering they would have had a lot more detail. Oddly, the shots I took of an owl in its cage came out a lot more detailed than they usually do. The Sun was coming in from the left, and from where I was standing it put the light right against the owl. Normally shooting into the cage up to where the owl sits is a pain in the neck, and shots never come out good. It's dark at the top of the cage, and owl blends into the darkness. If you were to look at it just with your eyes, you'd have a heck of a time resolving detail. But, the Tamron and 20D did a good enough job that I could do some adjustments in Lightroom and the picture came out pretty dang good.

The Sun was causing a glare into the fencing that made it look like I was shooting through glass. It's funny how those little reflections off the fencing can add up to one big interference. But, there's a ton of detail, although flat, in the color and feathers. Too bad I don't have a CPL for this lens, I could have used one in this shot.

First the original shot, reduced of course...


Now the shot with my feeble Lightroom and PSP adjustments. Unfortunately I couldn't cut the glare. Looks like maybe I need to find a CPL for this lens...


29th of December 2008 (Mon), 09:57
The one thing I have found, regardless of any conditions, is that the VC is freakishly stable. I can say without a doubt that it is the most solid stabilization I've seen in any lens. I mean, you really have to be careless and jerk the thing around for it to budge. My Sig 18-200mm comes close, but you can still see tiny little jerks every now and then. The Tamron doesn't do that.

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:08
I totally agree regarding VC.
Now that I shoot mostly with the Tamron on my camera I got spiled. Then when I occasionally put the 55-250IS on the camera, all of a sudden the IS feels more unstable than the VC on the Tamron. It simply eliminates bigger amplitude shakes and motion than the Canon IS system, which is also remarkably good.

Good job on th owl by the way.
Oh, and I know that "The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked", so what does CPL stand for?

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:23
Great shots I'm considering this lens myself.

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:33
The one thing I have found, regardless of any conditions, is that the VC is freakishly stable.
I went to the zoo the other day and discovered that image stabilization is worth it, whether it's called IS or VC or whatever. This eagle shot is with the 70-200 f/4 IS, NOT the Tamron lens, but it shows the point... It was very shady there so 1600 ISO and 1/60 was needed... I would not have pulled it off without IS:


29th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:37
Circular Polarizing Filter.

It's a filter that you can put on the front of the lens and adjust to remove glare from windows and water and stuff like that. It helps out immensely when shooting through glass, like at a zoo, or when shooting into water where you want to see what's in the water and not the surface reflections.

And now that I think about it, I do have one for the Tamron. I bought it when I got the UV filter. Geez, that would have been a nice thing to remember when I was at the zoo.

Se, it's not just the stupid question thing that gets you, it's the sometimes just being plain stupid. Which I am all the time.

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:39
Nice shot! IS or VC or OS or whatever it's called is a blessing. Even though it won't stabilize a moving subject, I pretty much shoot static subjects so for me it's critical to have it.
Not that I would mind having a nice fast long lens though :) Maybe one day...

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 10:40
"CPL", of course. Yes, that would have helped there.

Do you use your hood that came with the lens by the way?

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 11:43
Yes, I was using it. It didn't help too much with some shots, but it did help a little bit with when the Sun was at my side or slightly behind me. The only problem was that those shots weren't the ones I was concerned too much with as far as testing the lens. But, I'd prefer if it were a bit longer, and maybe not a flower-petal design. Seems like those types of hoods always let light in somewhere.

The angle on the owl shots was such that I couldn't do anything about the glare and reflections. it was one of those "perfect spot for lousy shots" angles. The owl always sits at the top of the cage, and it's dark up there. Even when the Sun shines into the cage, it's cutting through an adjacent cage, so you get shadows no matter where you stand. Then you get the glare off of the fencing, and you can't get close enough to press the lens against the cage without hoping a barrier.

The previous shot of the coyote, I could press the lens against the cage, and the cage was spaced large enough that it didn't interfere with a clear shot. But, the angle of the Sun was the problem there. The shot came out okay for IQ, but the shadow and reflections gave it the dull look.

A few more with somewhat better lighting...




29th of December 2008 (Mon), 12:48
nice ones!

29th of December 2008 (Mon), 22:50
I have had this lens about two weeks now. I am blown away by it. Focus speed/sound isn't 'L' like, but other than that, the only weakness I have seen is shooting at 270 at long distance subjects.

The first one is 1/50th....ISO 1250 at 270mm.



29th of December 2008 (Mon), 23:36
That dog's eyes are absolutely killer!!

1st of January 2009 (Thu), 00:28
both shots straight from the camera besides shrinkage and whibal fix on the cat.
shot on manual, f/11, 1/200, ISO400, bounced 430ex II at 270mm

shot on program ae, f/6.3, 1/60, ISO 400, bounced 430ex II on stroboframe at 270mm

1st of January 2009 (Thu), 10:19
That dog's eyes are absolutely killer!!
Ditto. Awesome shot.

1st of January 2009 (Thu), 13:09



1st of January 2009 (Thu), 15:00
i did some controlled macro test with the 18-270. DPreview reported poor macro sharpness at 270mm.
It's actually not that bad, here are some examples. Tripod used, ISO100 mostly f/8, manual focus set to minimum distance, then I set up the subject.

whole images resized, and 100% full frame crops.









3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 09:16
Moon, last night:

270mm, Manual mode, ISO 100, tripod, f/8, 1/30 sec, full frame crop sharpened


3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 09:44
looks good to me! nice shot gabe!

3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 18:31
Now, I really don't intend to flood this thread with my pictures, but I'm still learning tricks with this lens and I like posting the results :)

Even though DPreview stated that the Tamron is sharpest at f/6.3 at 270mm, I found that my copy is sharpest at f/8 which makes sense to me.

Today's walk in the (very cold) park, these are processed images:




Jim Holtz
3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 19:11

Keep your images coming. I think you're getting spectacular pictures out of this lens.


3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 20:54
Yes, keep them coming. It seems like there's not a lot of people with this lens, so we're all probably going to be the only ones posting pics. Which is okay with me. I'm sure if someone stumbles onto this thread, it will help them decide if they'll buy the lens or not, so all pictures help the cause.

We went out to Brookfield Zoo today, and I shot with the Tamron. Unfortunately, I got a lot of pics with motion blur. Don't ask me why, but I did. It's actually pretty disappointing, but I did get some very nice shots. Not what I thought I'd get, I expected much more. But if I had to blame it on something, it would be that it was too cold, and the VC wouldn't compensate for my shaking. I was shooting with my Bigmos too, and I got the same results. I think I was shaking too much for the stabilized lenses to make much of a difference. And like a knucklehead, I didn't bother to bring a tripod. Live and learn. I'm still impressed with the lens for the most part. Seems like 99% of the time it's my fault and not the lens when shots come out bad. One thing I've noticed is that one 20D body will shoot this lens sharper than the other. Both have the same settings and firmware, but one seems to be better with the lens. I think the only difference I have with the two is the white balance.





And they had some really cool ice sculptures...




3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 21:07
Great shots, I really like the leopard (?) licking its paw.

3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 21:12
Here, I'm posting a few more. I went out to the park (like I said earlier), the temp was 29 F, so call me crazy...
Anyway, I shot (or photographed, to be more accurate) a bunch of deer and birds. The birds I shot through a window from inside a wildlife observation area.

As I was walking in the shrub I almost tripped over a resting deer (a little exageration). I'd love to photograph more exotic animals too. Although it's a good thing that I stumbled upon a deer and not a more exotic feline (like you photographed today.) Anyhow, here are a couple more shots.

First is a 100% image cropped from my resting deer picture. Just a JPEG, ISO 400, 270mm, f/8. No sharpening or PP.

The others are processed, cropped, resized etc.




3rd of January 2009 (Sat), 23:46
It would have been nice for the leopard to put up a little bit better of a display, but he was too busy cleaning himself. When we walked up to the enclosure he was walking around, but there were too many people at the glass to get any shots. By the time my daughter and I got to it he was on his way up to the top of the habitat. So I walked around to the open area and shot. He didn't do much except polish his marbles after that.



Another shot of the deer. There were two bucks there, one in the center and another to the left. I couldn't get a shot of them together.


This is about the best shot I could muster of the two bucks together. I was talking with my wife and was telling her how the wind was blowing strong enough to move my hands. That's probably what caused the blur I got in the deer shots. That, and my cold hands shaking more than the stabilization could compensate for.


4th of January 2009 (Sun), 00:47
I currently do not have much of a high budget as i am a student, my 28-135mm lens was very impressing for the price i got it for, but it was not as wide as i wanted it to be on my 50D. Right now for the next upcoming months up to spring/summer i need to get this tamron 18-270 if not the canon 18-200.

I just need to get the 18-200 or tamron 18-270 before the end of this month, for 50d...

4th of January 2009 (Sun), 21:38
If I had to decide today which one to buy, the Canon 18-200IS, or the Tamron 18-270VC, I'm not sure which one I'd chose. Based on a bunch of tests and reviews I've read AND my copy of the Tamron, the Canon has better focus (faster), and it's probably sharper at the tele end, plus it has a tad better pincushion distortion control in mid and tele zoom range.
However, the Tamron has better overall CA control (except tele end), better barrel distortion control (slightly), better light fallow figures, longer reach (which is softer but MAY make up for the softness by adding the longer reach). It has a bit better sharpness in the wide to mid zoom range.

I like my Tamron, I bought it when Ebay had the 25% Live cashback, and it was from an authorized Tamron retailer. I did not find authorized Canon retailers on Ebay when I made my purchase, and the Canon was $550.00 back then. Plus the Tamron has a 6 year warranty as opposed to the Canon's 1 year. The Canon can be had today for $499.00 The cheapest Tamron price is I think around $530.00

So to keep the images and observations coming, here are some more interesting test shots. Again, I am comparing my Tamron to my Canon 55-250 IS, which is proven to be better optically than the Canon 18-200IS (per Lightrules' comparo).

Soooo, I keep taking comparison images with my Canon and Tamron.
Canon wins at the telephoto end, it's sharper a bit. However if I compare the Canon's 200mm image, which is the tele end of the Canon 18-200IS, with the Tamron's 270mm image resized to 200mm dimensions, the results are interesting.

Both lenses are sharpest at f/8 at 250mm and 270mm respectively.

Of course these are 100% full frame crops.

Canon 200mm image:

And the Tamron's 270mm image resized to be a comparable 200mm image:

Here is the Canon's 250mm image:

And here is the Tamron's 270mm image, which is a bit softer than the Canon's 250mm:

As a bonus, here is a deer's ear shot with the Tamron at 270mm f/8, ISO 400. Full frame crop, RAW to Jpeg.

4th of January 2009 (Sun), 21:59
those are good comparisons, but people are wanting to compare the "super-zoom" walkaround lenses, everybody knows that for the most part the nifty-two fifty is a better lens, so the comparisons should be between the canon 18-200 and the tamron, both gauged at 18 and at 200. my tamron is pretty sharp at 270. i haven't done any side by side comparisons with the 18-200 since i don't have the lens. just saying that these aren't really fair. the whole reason a lot of people get these superzooms is so that they don't need to change lenses, and if they're using the nifty250, they're gonna need to have the kit lens or an equivalent with them.

good shots though nonetheless.

4th of January 2009 (Sun), 22:24
Looks like I'm having the same issues as some others- trying to decide between the Canon 18-200IS and the Tamron 18-270VC. I like the idea of the extra reach and slightly better IQ on the Tamron but am a bit scared off by the slower AF and hunting issues in low-light.

I figure I'm just gonna have to pull the trigger this week sometime.

5th of January 2009 (Mon), 08:15
you're right, it isn't the best comparison, since I'm not comparing the Tamron to its competitor since I don't own one. But you're right, the whole point is not having to change lenses, as long as the IQ is comparable.

This is more like an indirect comparison. I do own the 18-55IS kit lens and the 55-250IS. A few pages earlier I posted a bunch of comparison shots between the Tamron and the two Canon combo at all kinds of focal lengths between 18-270mm. The results were quite good for the Tamron, it stood up nicely to the two lens combo, closely matching and occasionally producing better images than the Canons.

Now, I took this to the next level, and assumed based on other tests, that the two lens Canon combo has overall better IQ than the new Canon 18-200IS. So consequently if the Tamron closely matches or in certain areas surpasses my two lens Canon combo, then it definately stands up to the Canon 18-200IS.

But everyone can compare them at Lightrules' test anyway, as well as DPreview's MTF/Distortion/Lightfalloff etc. interactive chart. Pop Photo's review is odd, they must have gotten a very sharp Canon and a mediocre Tamron.

I haven't really had much of a low light focusing problem. Of course I'm staying within reasonable light levels. But no problem focusing in living room lit by one 100W bulb.
I even posted a picture earlier where I shot 270mm, ISO1600, 1 second shutter time = very low light obviously, and it was in focus, and relatively sharp hand held. I still haven't really tested the servo focus on kids running around. The VC on this lens is better than the IS on my Canon combo, period.

So I think it's a good alternative to the Canon.

But like I said, I had the opportunity to buy the Tammy for $450.00 from an authorized Tamron dealer, and that price was quite a factor in my decision against the Canon 18-200. Today that Ebay cashback is 0%, so no discounts.

I like my Tamron so much that I will list my Canon 18-55IS and 55-250IS here in the For Sale section. I really don't use them much since I got the 18-270VC, and I can use that money towards some fast lens in the future.

Pansy Potter
5th of January 2009 (Mon), 16:52
Just joined this forum having moved from compacts to my first SLR, the 450D with 18-55 kit lens. First thing I noticed was big drop in zoom from the 12X I had in my compact. After a bit of research I came across the 18-270 and eventually found this discussion. I'm very impressed with the pictures posted here and have ordered one of these lenses, which I should have in a few days. I will upload some pictures asap.

5th of January 2009 (Mon), 16:57
Cool, welcome to the Forum.
I'm looking forward to those pictures.

5th of January 2009 (Mon), 20:45
yeah, sorry, forgot about your other posts, the servo shots i've taken came out pretty awesome, the car shots i took a while back were all shot in servo, some even at 270/6.3. was a nice day for shooting, not too much sun, just right. and lightroom helps too, even though i went crazy with the vignetting, just got tired of editing every shot.

Sharon S
7th of January 2009 (Wed), 20:09
Got mines last night and I took this first shot with the lens and my new 50d this morning in my garden.
I know its not as sharp as I would like it,but those darn humming birds move pretty fast and considering it's my first shot ever from a dslr using the 18-270 tamron ,I hope to improve over time.
I also know the whites are a little blown out.
I cant wait to get out there and really start shooting with my new camera and new lens.

7th of January 2009 (Wed), 22:13
Nice shot!!! I had pretty good experience shooting hummingbirds with my Canon 55-250 IS which I just sold today. It's winter here so in about 6 months I can test my Tamron on hummingbirds :)

Trinidad? Cool... nice weather. I have a good friend from Trinidad and half our soccer team went there two summers ago (I didn't make it though)

8th of January 2009 (Thu), 10:42
Hi Gabebalazs

Thank for your clear review , this weekend i going to the shop to see Canon 18-200 , Tamron 18-270. I will focus more on their prices because i'm on budget now..:)

I want a lense which is in good IQ (1 lense for all travel spot), and macro for specify flower..

I just cancel my 50mm 1.8 due to budget and a Pretty Switerland trip is waiting for me.

Will post up my picture after this week . Wish me good luck on my selection