Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I have been using a Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD as my walk around lens for about 3 years. I actually traded my two nikon kit lenses that came with my D3100 to help defray the cost. A friend of mine found a beat up Nikon 55-200 lens in the park with no lens cover (either side) on it. I cleaned it up and was going to give it to my daughter to use with my original D3100 that I gave to her.

I ran a head to head test on the two lens at 200 mm, wide open (f/6.3), shutter speed 1/200, with tripod, mirror up release with remote, VR off.

To my dismay, here is what I found. The Nikon lens was way sharper at 1:1 (not even close). In addition, the Tamron was actually shot at 220 mm according to the metadata but the Nikon was zoomed in more even though the metadata said 200 (approx 250 mm equivalent on the Tamron). Plus I could have gone one setting lower on the f/stop with the Nikon.

Is this something to be expected or is it time to send the Tamron back to the factory?? Does anyone have experience doing this with a Tamron lens?

I do have the D7100 which allows for camera:lens autofocus calibration but I found the Tamron to be best at the default camera setting of zero to get the best focus at all focal length's

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Check out some of these sites.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD vs. Nikon 55-200 G AF-S DX VR

Move your mouse over the sample images to compare. Tamron is on the left; Nikon is on the right.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=843&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=668&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Designing a zoom lens is a difficult job, and the more the zoom the more difficult it becomes. There are exceptions, of course, but you're almost always better off going with several short-zoom lenses (or even better, prime lenses) rather than one long-zoom lens.

Last summer, I replaced my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses with one Tamron 18-270mm lens, figuring that I would have less to carry and wouldn't have to change lenses. Before my Canon Rebel unexpectedly died early this summer, and I ended up switching over to a Pentax, I had "retired" the Tamron because I realized that my original lenses were at least as good (even though one was a "kit" lens) and the shorter lens was easier to work with when that was all that I really needed.

MarkD Loc: NYC

Superzooms, like your Tamron 18-270 are not as sharp as comparable lower ratio zooms especially at the long end so what you found is not surprising. The question is is the lens sharp enough under actual shooting conditions. Some answer yes, others no.

All superzooms lose effective focal length at distances less than infinity. The closer the subject the more effective focal length you lose. It's in their design. I wish more lens tests and salespeople would tell people this.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

Very interesting, that is something I have not heard before. To be clear, are you saying that if I focus at something under infinity, if my Tamron is at the 270 mm focal length, it is actually something less than that?? Or another way I could put it is that if I took my Tamron and took a closer than infinity shot of a subject at the 270 mm focal length and than compared that with a prime 270 mm lens, the prime would appear magnified to a greater extent correct??

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

That is a very helpful site. One question though, it allows you to adjust the focal length and the f stop in the comparison but when doing that it doesn't change the schematic you look at. In the one you entered the info for me, the Tamron lens is zoomed in to a higher focal length no matter what I enter. Am I doing something wrong???

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Not surprised with your results at all. In fact, with some older tamron lens I'd say it's par for the course. I am surprised the Nikon performed so well after all the abuse, but again, the Nikon is a better quality lens, hands down. Some of the newer Tamron lens, especially the SP's, are getting much better. But many of the older Tamrons didn't measure up and are not considered top tier.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

I own and shoot with the Tamron 18-270. It is a good vacation lens, or walk-around, and nothing more. Keep in mind this lens is warrantied for 6 years, to the original owner. Before I'd give it more testing to fail, I'd send it to Tamron, for "soft focus" calibration, cleaning and testing. I sent mine in, it came back with a new element, cleaned, calibrated to my 7D specs, smoother zoom, and faster focus. I'm thinking of sending it in again for another calibration to my 7D Mark II specs. I used it through out New England, just last month on vacation. I took hundreds of personal shots, and got exactly what I expected from this type of super zoom. When the lens returns, you may want to check front/back focus before using it in a test.

B

MarkD Loc: NYC

Yes. You can see this with your 55-200. Set both lenses to 200mm and shoot something 10 or 15 feet away. The field-of-view of the 18-270 will be less than that of the 55-200. Shoot consecutive shots first with one lens and then with the other and compare them on the LCD screen. Try doing it at different distances. As far as I know all superzooms do this.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

Actually thats what I did but got different results. I set both at 200 and focused at about 15 feet away. As it turned out, the 55-200 read out 200mm in the metadata, the Tamron 220 but the Nikon lens had the less field of view (more zoomed). Very weird I thought

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

Thanks, I think that is a great idea. I have looked back and gotten some very good focused shots with the Tamron. I'll see what happens!!

MarkD Loc: NYC

What you saw is what should happen. The Tamron lost effective focal length while the Nikon 55-200 didn't. The metadata read what the lens told it, not the effective focal length. The effective focal length is determined by the field-of-view. I don't know why it read 220mm unless maybe the lens extended itself. The Tamron 18-270 does suffer from zoom lens creep.

If you zoom the Nikon 55-200 to show the same field-of-view as the Tamron you'll get the effective focal length of the Tamron at that distance.

rando Loc: Rochester NY

How long is the turnaround from Tamron for this recalibration?

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Call Tamron to set-up the return. They can give you exact turnaround time. I got my lens back in about 10 days door to door. You'll need to download a form, and need your receipt for warranty repair/calibration.

B