Tamron 18-400mm F/3.5-6.3 DI-II VC HLD Samples and evaluation. Post up yours.

Well, as much as I wanted to like this lens I have decided to return it...

I did quite a few test shots comparing it to my EF-S 18-135 IS USM and EF 70-300mm IS II USM mounted on my EOS M50. With the exception of obvious increased softness at 400mm, it was pretty much indistinguishable from the Canon lenses at 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm.

While it might be a viable option for someone who doesn't have other lenses to cover its range, the "all in one" aspect just didn't impress me as much as I thought it would. Additionally, the zoom ring is quite non-linear. It zooms smooth and easy and with expected resistance from 18mm to about 70mm where it hits a wall of increased resistance to push past to 100mm and beyond. Not sure if this is intentional or just on my copy but I found it very annoying.

Throughout the entire range focus was a noticeably slow and it seemed to have moments where it really hunted when it shouldn't have needed to. I even had to manually focus it on one test shot of a red rose with clear petals. Both the 18-135mm and 70-300mm Canon lenses focus faster and never had any hunt issues during my test shots.

While nice and compact considering it's range, it is thicker and only about 1/2" shorter than the 70-300mm Canon, mind you the 70-300mm IS II USM is an EF lens providing full frame coverage, whereas the Tamron is EF-S and the vignette is there throughout the complete zoom range. If you use it on a FF body it requires about 1.3x crop to get rid of. I think it is too big for a "walk around" lens to be on the camera

The absolute killer though was when being used on my EOS R in crop mode, it gave my camera a seizure - stuttery focus with fast short range back and forth without locking, erratic operation and after turning the camera off and back on, I found that all of my custom button assignments had been wiped out/reset.

Given the non-linear zoom pressure, focus speed, focus issues, and softness at 400mm I don't think it is a $650 lens. To me, it "feels" more like what I would expect from a $400-$450 lens. If I were to hold, examine, and play with it side by side with the Canon 70-300mm ($499) knowing nothing about them and going only on an initial impression, I would guess the Canon to be the more expensive lens, even considering the additional range of the Tamron.

So all things considered, it just was not the "one to do it all" solution I was hoping for and its shortcomings are not outweighed by not having to carry a second lens and occasionally swapping between them.

If you have an 18-135mm or even an 18-55mm kit lens and wanting to get something in the 300-400mm range, I would recommend the Canon 70-300mm IS II USM. While I didn't specifically test it, I would bet that taking a 300mm shot from the Canon to the same framing of the Tamron at 400mm, it would provide better IQ than the Tamron at 400mm.

LoneRider wrote in post #18802870
Well, as much as I wanted to like this lens I have decided to return it...

I did quite a few test shots comparing it to my EF-S 18-135 IS USM and EF 70-300mm IS II USM mounted on my EOS M50. With the exception of obvious increased softness at 400mm, it was pretty much indistinguishable from the Canon lenses at 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm.

While it might be a viable option for someone who doesn't have other lenses to cover its range, the "all in one" aspect just didn't impress me as much as I thought it would. Additionally, the zoom ring is quite non-linear. It zooms smooth and easy and with expected resistance from 18mm to about 70mm where it hits a wall of increased resistance to push past to 100mm and beyond. Not sure if this is intentional or just on my copy but I found it very annoying.

Throughout the entire range focus was a noticeably slow and it seemed to have moments where it really hunted when it shouldn't have needed to. I even had to manually focus it on one test shot of a red rose with clear petals. Both the 18-135mm and 70-300mm Canon lenses focus faster and never had any hunt issues during my test shots.

While nice and compact considering it's range, it is thicker and only about 1/2" shorter than the 70-300mm Canon, mind you the 70-300mm IS II USM is an EF lens providing full frame coverage, whereas the Tamron is EF-S and the vignette is there throughout the complete zoom range. If you use it on a FF body it requires about 1.3x crop to get rid of. I think it is too big for a "walk around" lens to be on the camera

The absolute killer though was when being used on my EOS R in crop mode, it gave my camera a seizure - stuttery focus with fast short range back and forth without locking, erratic operation and after turning the camera off and back on, I found that all of my custom button assignments had been wiped out/reset.

Given the non-linear zoom pressure, focus speed, focus issues, and softness at 400mm I don't think it is a $650 lens. To me, it "feels" more like what I would expect from a $400-$450 lens. If I were to hold, examine, and play with it side by side with the Canon 70-300mm ($499) knowing nothing about them and going only on an initial impression, I would guess the Canon to be the more expensive lens, even considering the additional range of the Tamron.

So all things considered, it just was not the "one to do it all" solution I was hoping for and its shortcomings are not outweighed by not having to carry a second lens and occasionally swapping between them.

If you have an 18-135mm or even an 18-55mm kit lens and wanting to get something in the 300-400mm range, I would recommend the Canon 70-300mm IS II USM. While I didn't specifically test it, I would bet that taking a 300mm shot from the Canon to the same framing of the Tamron at 400mm, it would provide better IQ than the Tamron at 400mm.

Hosted photo: posted by LoneRider in
./showthread.php?p=188​02870&i=i189354856
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

Hosted photo: posted by LoneRider in
./showthread.php?p=188​02870&i=i97396461
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

Sorry it didn't work out for you. I sure enjoyed taking it on the flight with me. It did what I needed it to do. It is much smaller and lighter than my 28-300L and I didn't need to take the 18-55 STM either.

Interesting that you said "it was pretty much indistinguishable from the Canon lenses at 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm". That is high praise in my book. To get all that in one lens for $650 is worth it to me.

Of course I am not planning to use it for wildlife or sports. The 100-400L is much better for that.

Yes, with the exception of 400mm, I was surprised with IQ and admittedly, that could have been an issue with my copy. Having had a 28-300mm L, it certainly is a more impressive size difference.

Admittedly, I may be “picky” on focus speed. I noticed other reviewers considered it to be quick to focus. Of course ratings/reviews are always a mix of objective and subjective related to other experiences. I have gotten spoiled with AF speed as I have progressed to higher end lenses.

Honestly, if not for the issue on the R and already having the Canon 70-300mm, had it been sub $500, I would probably would have decided to keep it. I am eyeing the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 G2 though and the $650 spent on this lens gets me halfway there.


*Edit to add... Does your copy exhibit the varying amount of pressure needed to go through the zoom range? It seemed very odd to me. Curious if it was an issue with my copy or they are all that way

LoneRider wrote in post #18802901
Yes, with the exception of 400mm, I was surprised with IQ and admittedly, that could have been an issue with my copy. Having had a 28-300mm L, it certainly is a more impressive size difference.

Admittedly, I may be “picky” on focus speed. I noticed other reviewers considered it to be quick to focus. Of course ratings/reviews are always a mix of objective and subjective related to other experiences. I have gotten spoiled with AF speed as I have progressed to higher end lenses.

Honestly, if not for the issue on the R and already having the Canon 70-300mm, had it been sub $500, I would probably would have decided to keep it. I am eyeing the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 G2 though and the $650 spent on this lens gets me halfway there.


*Edit to add... Does your copy exhibit the varying amount of pressure needed to go through the zoom range? It seemed very odd to me. Curious if it was an issue with my copy or they are all that way

Yes there is. Many of the reviews have mentioned it. It really doesn't bother me. I'm still getting used to turning a zoom ring rather than the push/pull of the 28-300L and 100-400L! Always turning the wrong direction.

Ended up getting another copy to go with my M6-II, figured I would resurrect this thread...

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1056805)

Some shots from the garden this morning...

A couple more getting the hang of it on my M6 Mark II

When I first bought this lens (and then returned it) I was concerned about it being pretty soft at 400mm. Here is a shot at 400mm with my 2nd copy, not nearly as concerned this time around.

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1057352)

This lens has just been sitting on my shelf as a small, travel lens for quite a while; but, I put it through some real paces with a kayak camping trip this weekend. Paired it with one of my old 7D MkIs just so I wasn't risking the more expensive gear in unknown conditions. Shooting from a moving kayak and in some hard light conditions were definitely not situations that I'd normally expect this level of gear to excel at, so was a good exercise. Spent some time with high ISOs, movement, etc and while it wasn't what I would call 'pleasing' to work with, the final results were pretty darned nice for this level of lens; certainly better than I've managed with the various 18-270 models over the years.

ISO 6400:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw4​vxw

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw8​kdj

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw4​vd3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw8​gxJ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw3​Mg7

Snydremark wrote in post #19109031
This lens has just been sitting on my shelf as a small, travel lens for quite a while; but, I put it through some real paces with a kayak camping trip this weekend. Paired it with one of my old 7D MkIs just so I wasn't risking the more expensive gear in unknown conditions. Shooting from a moving kayak and in some hard light conditions were definitely not situations that I'd normally expect this level of gear to excel at, so was a good exercise. Spent some time with high ISOs, movement, etc and while it wasn't what I would call 'pleasing' to work with, the final results were pretty darned nice for this level of lens; certainly better than I've managed with the various 18-270 models over the years.

ISO 6400:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw4​vxw Young buck Jones Isl-9938 by Eric, on Flickr

Young Swallow getting fed on the wing:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw8​kdj South Beach Swallows-0375 by Eric, on Flickr

From front seat of the double kayak; while in a current:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw4​vd3 Wasp Islands paddling-9999 by Eric, on Flickr

Cooperative Barred Owl at roadside:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw8​gxJ Barred Owl-0312 by Eric, on Flickr

Sunset from the ferry on return trip:
https://flic.kr/p/2jw3​Mg7Anacortes sunset-0689 by Eric, on Flickr

All of these were shot handheld, with no additional support besides the built-in VR. Overall, very happy with the lens; I would not revert to using this for normal usage but will happily keep it on the bench for when I need a compact lens for traveling, etc.

You got some good results. It's great for travelling light. Shooting from a kayak is a challenge.

Snydremark wrote in post #19109031
This lens has just been sitting on my shelf as a small, travel lens for quite a while; but, I put it through some real paces with a kayak camping trip this weekend. Paired it with one of my old 7D MkIs just so I wasn't risking the more expensive gear in unknown conditions. Shooting from a moving kayak and in some hard light conditions were definitely not situations that I'd normally expect this level of gear to excel at, so was a good exercise. Spent some time with high ISOs, movement, etc and while it wasn't what I would call 'pleasing' to work with, the final results were pretty darned nice for this level of lens; certainly better than I've managed with the various 18-270 models over the years.


Young Swallow getting fed on the wing:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jw8​kdj South Beach Swallows-0375 by Eric, on Flickr

This one reminds me of my wife greeting me upon return from a trip to the camera store...

Great shots, I’m glad I gave this lens a second chance. Pairs great with my M6 II

Just got around to processing this in color. It is a bit soft due to only having a 6-stop and compensating with f/20 for shutter speed, but sharp enough for web viewing. This lens seems to suffer from stopping way down more than others.

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Shot this today for a camera club 50 mm assignment and kind of like it. Lit by bathroom vanity light.

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Had a PM about this lens on the M6 II, posting a couple of pics of that combo for size reference.

M6 Mark II and Tamron 18-400mm samples. I like the small size compared to my 5DS-R + EF 28-300MM f/3.5-5.6L IS USM combination.

Photo from fotoi's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1165134)

Photo from fotoi's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1165135)