How is the Tamron 18-270?

I've got a 60D and the Canon 18-135. I'd like to have something with more reach. I'd like to never change lenses. I know that's not reasonable but could probably get by at least 90% with that one lens. That plus something in the 1x-2x extra wide angle range should cover 99% of everything until I can add some fun stuff like a macro and a T/S lens.

So, what does everyone (with any experience) think of the Tamron 18-270?

I've had the Tamron 18-270, the Canon 55-250 and the Canon 70-300 IS USM, all at the same time in fact. While I thought the 55-250 might have been the best bang for the buck and I though the 70-300 may have been slightly sharper at the long end (and 30-50mm longer than the other two lenses anyway), the Tamron was the lens that got the most use. At that time, I rarely took it off the camera, even taking hundreds of photos in Alaska with it and I liked it quite a bit.

When I started upgrading bodies and lenses, I sold the Tamron but I've never really stopped regretting it because it would have been super on my backup 30D that I didn't have at the time I sold the Tamron. It's not a perfect lens by any means but it's a pretty darn good lens and really, really flexible for the price. I think you'd like it. I now have a few higher priced lenses that I like a lot but I still occasionally consider purchasing another copy of the 18-270 because I enjoyed it so much, it's reasonably sharp, reasonably inexpensive, very light and very flexible.

(by the way, I'm also shooting a 60D and the Tammy lens seemed to be a good match for it).

I have the 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD. For their specific purposes, my Canon 17-55 and 100-400L are great, but for so many general outings the Tamron is my go-to lens.

If I were you, I'd look into the Sigma 18-250 OS MACRO, which is at least as good, if not better than the Tamron, and earlier today was selling for $289 shipped from Buy.com. The deal is over apparently but this lens is often found at around $300, which makes it the best superzoom right now.

I bought the Sigma 18-250 OS Macro two months ago and really haven't had much chance to shoot with it. I shot a bunch of images of family at Thanksgiving and it was a bit hit-or-miss with focus, but that's probably more due to my bad eyes and learning to work with autofocus than the lens's fault.

https://www.facebook.c​om …529&l=395811561​9708441131

Then I chanced upon this snowy sunset shot and was unhappy with the amount of CA and color fringing in the raw images:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

bumpintheroad wrote in post #16551974
I was very disappointed to see that the Tamron, at least the copy I received, is noticeably softer at 18mm wide open than the Sigma. Perhaps I received a bad copy, and I'll call B&H after the Christmas rush to discuss this possibility with them, but even viewing the full frame on-screen the quality was unacceptably soft. Even stopped down to f/7.1 the Tamron was soft. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the Tamron vs Sigma lenses:

I'm going to do some more test shots comparing the two, but in all likelihood I'll be sending the Tamron 18-270 back and keeping the Sigma.

Before I decide on a lens, I scrutinize it and it's competitors using The Digital Picture .com's lens comparison tool. Since I don't have a camera store within a reasonable distance from my home, it's really the only way I can see what I'm potentially getting.

With that in mind, when I compare your Sigma to the Tamron, I wouldn't have ordered the Tamron. Even though they aren't compared on the same body, it's enough info for me to move on from the Tamron. Here's the comparison link. In honesty, I wouldn't consider a superzoom, as IMO, the IQ suffers too badly on (I think) all of them for me to ever be happy with them.

So, I doubt it's just your copy, I would think that's what you'll get with the Tamron. The Sigma seems to fair better, but it still isn't a lens I would consider for anything important, myself.

I started out with the second version of the 18-270, about 5 years ago. It was a great tool for getting started and learning what constraints I could live with and what I needed to address with different lenses. It isn't going to deal out Nat Geo level photographs, by any stretch, but it is a perfectly capable lens; the focal range covered is nice, the colors and clarity are decent and their image stabilization (VC) is better than anyone else's.

Last year or the year before I traded that one in for the new PZD model, which is notably smaller/lighter/quiete​r. It is still my go-to, 'travel' lens when I'm going somewhere for sheer visitation and don't plan on doing any, 'serious' photography.

Bath Cathedral @ 18mm:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/7036​161651/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/6890​533980/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/6890​756168/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/7036​741329/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/3656​327364/

I owned one for a little while and enjoyed using it. It was a little soft wide open, but stopped down it wasn't too bad. If I were in the market for an all-in-one lens, I would look into picking another one up.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16553165
Before I decide on a lens, I scrutinize it and it's competitors using The Digital Picture .com's lens comparison tool. Since I don't have a camera store within a reasonable distance from my home, it's really the only way I can see what I'm potentially getting.

I actually did look at that comparison but couldn't find many apples-to-apples configurations. I do have a camera store nearby, and B&H is under 2 hours from me. I probably should have jumped in the car instead of on the computer to do my research.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16553165
... In honesty, I wouldn't consider a superzoom, as IMO, the IQ suffers too badly on (I think) all of them for me to ever be happy with them.

So, I doubt it's just your copy, I would think that's what you'll get with the Tamron. The Sigma seems to fair better, but it still isn't a lens I would consider for anything important, myself.

I've always believed that the best camera is the one you have in your hand when you need one. So although none of the super-zooms are going to give stellar quality, I tend to keep one mounted on my body when running around in case an opportunity pops-up and I don't have time to select a better lens. Unfortunately, the copy of the Tamron I got doesn't look much better than a cell-phone capture.

Snydremark wrote in post #16553267
I started out with the second version of the 18-270, about 5 years ago. It was a great tool for getting started and learning what constraints I could live with and what I needed to address with different lenses. It isn't going to deal out Nat Geo level photographs, by any stretch, but it is a perfectly capable lens; the focal range covered is nice, the colors and clarity are decent and their image stabilization (VC) is better than anyone else's.

Last year or the year before I traded that one in for the new PZD model, which is notably smaller/lighter/quiete​r. It is still my go-to, 'travel' lens when I'm going somewhere for sheer visitation and don't plan on doing any, 'serious' photography.

...

Again, it isn't going to give totally amazing results, but price/performance it's still one of the best lenses I've picked up.

Beautiful images. I just don't believe the copy I received is capable of the sharpness and contrast shown in your samples.

Given the inherent limitations of a superzoom and the goal of getting a lens that outperforms the Sigma 18-250 enough to justify the additional expense, I'm not going to bother trying another copy of the Tamron. Instead, I'll take that money and save up for a 24-70 f/2.8L.