Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF

A buddy of mine was showing me a few things with my camera and told me i show consider trying this lens out Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF What do you guys think of this lens? I was planning on the canon ef-s 55-250m is but want your opinions first about this one! Thank You!!

I don't know where to begin, there are thousand reasons why NOT to get a superzoom....

Get the canon twin kit....

kin2son wrote in post #14741488
I don't know where to begin, there are thousand reasons why NOT to get a superzoom....

Get the canon twin kit....

Why Not?? And what is the canon twin kit?

I have borrowed this lens from work a lots of times, and i think its good value. Small, easy to carry, wideangle to superzoom, stabilizer, good picturequality (Much better quality then canon 18-55 and 55-250), and its cheap. But on the other side, Canon 18-200 is better, and original.

AMP2774 wrote in post #14741497
Why Not?? And what is the canon twin kit?

Fyi superzoom is a compromise design of IQ for range.

Canon twin kit = 18-55 + 55-250.

AMP2774 wrote in post #14741455
A buddy of mine was showing me a few things with my camera and told me i show consider trying this lens out Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF What do you guys think of this lens? I was planning on the canon ef-s 55-250m is but want your opinions first about this one! Thank You!!

i have the older version and never regret. check out the thread for it. it gives amazing result.

would be better if constant 2.8 though.

there are reasons to get either:

18-55 + 55-250 = better IQ
18-270 = convenience

mike cabilangan wrote in post #14742161
there are reasons to get either:

18-55 + 55-250 = better IQ
18-270 = convenience

I was hoping the tamron lens would be equal or better i/q as the 2 mentioned canon lenses. I already have the 18-55mm canon if the tamron lens isn't as good for i/q then it seems to be smarter to just buy the 55-250mm is lens

Stop worrying to much over IQ in comparison between these lenses.

At least as important what camera do you use? Makes it a good match ? What subjects are you shooting? flashing or available light? And whats youre experience in photography?

I've seen some work of a good experienced photographer who used his wive's 450D with a Sigma 18-200 ( used this bacause of his broken Leica set ) and these pictures where awesome! Getting to know your set and knowing it's ups and downs makes much better quality pictures then getting a slightly better camera or lens.

For beginners it's even a really great lens, work with it and after a while you will excactly know what your missing or where's the downside. Then upgrade to a better suiteble lens for your kind of photography.

Personaly i think some of these lenses are underrated and they have more to offer than just convenience.

I have the older version of the 18-270 (not the PZD ver), and really like it on my T1i. It's not L-level sharpness, but the IQ is pretty good if the light's good enough for you to stop down a bit rather than shooting wide open, and it's very versatile. My particular copy front-focuses just a hair, but so does my Tokina 11-16, so it might be the camera rather than the lens that is causing the front focus.

I have the newer version of this lens. It stays on my 7d unless I'm shooting macro. I must have a sharp copy because I have no complaints with the IQ.

bebud

kin2son wrote in post #14741488
I don't know where to begin, there are thousand reasons why NOT to get a superzoom....

Get the canon twin kit....

Well, not quite a thousand, but superzooms are a compromise, no question. But for a walk around lens, why not. Its light, convenient, relatively inexpensive and can give moderately good to good results, especially when stopped down. It can be soft on the edges. I realize that even the 55-250mm has better IQ, but if a one lens solution is desired, the Tamron is not bad.

Einan wrote in post #14741516
I have borrowed this lens from work a lots of times, and i think its good value. Small, easy to carry, wideangle to superzoom, stabilizer, good picturequality (Much better quality then canon 18-55 and 55-250), and its cheap. But on the other side, Canon 18-200 is better, and original.

I have all the above. The Tamron is a very nice "do it all", walkaround lens, but the IQ and distortion is actually better on the 18-55 and 55-250 combo. The Tamron's pluses over the Canon pair is that its a one lens solution, has a slightly longer reach, has quiet autofocus, comes with a hood and has a non rotating front element. Other than that the Canon pair is superior, IMHO. I also have the 18-200mm Canon. Its a mixed bag whether it or a Tamron is better. The Canon 18-200 has some extreme barrel distortion and very high and noticeable Chromatic Aberration, but it does tend to be sharper then the Tamron in the corners.

AMP2774 wrote in post #14743897
I was hoping the tamron lens would be equal or better i/q as the 2 mentioned canon lenses. I already have the 18-55mm canon if the tamron lens isn't as good for i/q then it seems to be smarter to just buy the 55-250mm is lens

Don't overlook the convenience factor. Depending on how you plan to use it, not having to change lenses when your walking around can mean you don't miss shots and you can travel lighter. An important fact to some, unimportant to others. I personally rarely use a superzoom these days preferring the better IQ my 15-85mm provides, Even that lens is a compromise compared to primes.

bebud wrote in post #14745122
I have the newer version of this lens. It stays on my 7d unless I'm shooting macro. I must have a sharp copy because I have no complaints with the IQ.

bebud

You may have lucked out. Many copies are fairly soft at the edges when wide open. They get sharper when stopped down, but often are still a bit soft in the edges. In the center, they all tend to be pretty sharp, but I find the center sharpness is still not as good as my 15-85mm.