Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens with Built in Motor for Canon DSLR Cameras

Product Information

The Tamron 18-270mm's closest competitor is the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-5.6 DC Macro OS HSM, a very similarly spec'ed lens that we reviewed recently. The Tamron has a slightly longer zoom range, but the Sigma can focus closer. In this review we'll attempt to nail down the other, less obvious differences between these two third-party contenders. Headline features The wide open center-of-the-frame sharpness shows even further degradation by 35mm and the mid and corners remain very soft. This lens might appear to be aimed at casual photographers, but in reality you’ll get the most out of it if you’re prepared to shoot in raw and post-process away evident flaws. The images will look just fine, unless you like to print large or scrutinise them for pixel-level detail. You’d no doubt get technically better files by using two shorter-range zooms, but if, in practice, you don’t have the inclination to change lenses between shots, the point is moot: getting a shot that’s not especially sharp at 200mm definitely beats not getting one at all. The pictures below illustrate the focal length range from wide to telephoto (on Canon APS-C, 1.6x).

I rate this lens as a 10 not because it is an optical champ, but because it excells at what it was designed for. This is NOT a DA* Pro Grade lens. It is, however, an extremely agile walk around, with manageable quirks. The MILD pincushion is easily managed upon import, as is any corner stuff. The filter thread is 62mm - unusually (and economically) small for a superzoom. It does not rotate on autofocusing, which makes for easier use of filters like polarisers. At approx €500 this is the perfect travel lens imho as it is simply very good at what it is designed for. Toss the kit lens and start out with this one if you are an amateur and you will manage most situations. I have even shot a wedding with this lens, both indoors and outside. Very silent AF and much improved build and feel from the Tamron Di-II. The K-3 performs very well with this lens. Examples: The pulling power of the 18-270mm is amazing, as you can see from the two shots above, taken at the lens's two extremes but from the same spot.

Gravity extending (or retracting) is especially a problem when shooting upward or downward from a tripod using a hands-off approach (carry some gaffer's tape).

The Tamron 18-270 VC is, at review time, the lightest stabilized lens in the 18-2XXmm super telephoto lens class, but only barely so. Hi Daniel. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it seems the results for 100mm got muddled with the results from 18mm & 50mm. At 270mm, the entire image is soft wide open and especially soft in the mid and corner areas of the frame. My testing shows that I personally am seeing about 3.5 stops of help from VC on this specific lens. Like all SLR superzooms the 18-270mm suffers from pretty pronounced distortion. At wideangle there's quite strong barrel distortion (3.2%), with recorrection towards the corners. This turns to pincushion across the rest of the range, which is worst around 50mm (a rather severe -3.3%).Being constructed of 18 elements in 13 groups, the flare and ghosting performance of this lens is reasonable probably due to the sheer number of glass surfaces the light has to cross before reaching the sensor. Strong sources of light in the frame cause a quite severe loss of contrast. The lens is also prone to flare at the wide end with light sources out of the frame. The supplied hood improves matters a little, but strong sources of light out towards the corners will still cause quite strong flare. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. There is no doubt that the VC technology is very effective at getting sharper images when the light levels are low. Of course, we are not saying that VC means you can throw away the tripod, but when you are travelling light it lets you shoot for longer and that can only be a good thing. I suspect focusing errors came into play in these shots, but I could not confirm this from the specific shots I deemed not as good as they should be.