damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

I'm using an entry level camera, Sony a6000 with APS-C sensor.
A year ago I bought a Tamron 18-200mm lens for APSC cameras. I really liked the Zoom capability but I couldn't take a sharp picture to save my life, even when using a tripod. So, last week I bought a Sony Zeiss 24-70mm full frame lens. What a difference! I can't believe that pictures can be so sharp.
The below picture shows side by side comparison of the same spot, the Aperture, ISO and shutter speed are the same and the distance from the camera to the subject is almost identical.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You're using a 3rd party lens on a Sony body. We wonder if f/5.6 is 'wide open' for this variable aperture Tamron lens around 60mm? We wonder which specific versions of each lens you're using. These may be the current lenses where one is nearly twice to cost of the other, if purchased new. But, we don't know if these are the current models of both, or either. It may be that one lens has a problem, that reflects poorly on that specific specimen, as well as the brand overall. But, we don't know from just two thumbnail images presented as a comparison.

Looking at the 4 of 5 overall rating by customers at B&H, and their comments, it seems the lens is not a top performer, relative to what you might get with other lenses, whether paying more nor not. If you're now happy, hopefully there's a few lessons available from this exercise. One such lesson should not be simply that you get more if you pay more, even if the truthiness of that idea is widely believed within the UHH community.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Your results are not particularly surprising. Nikon used to make one with very similar parameters as those of your Tamron lens. The one I bougjt for my wife to use on her D40x about 15 years ago cost close to $700, so it was in no way a "cheap" lens, although the 17-55mm f/2.8 that I bpught for my D200 (and still use on a D500) was around $1700, if I recall correctly, Unfortunately it broke internally, and I can't find anyone interedted in fixing.

It was serviceable and useful, but it wasn't really great. It was quirky...strange things would go on with the distance scale at shorter focal lengths. But it was handy, and I used it.

Thing is, its zoom ratio was 11:1, and that can only be accomplished through doing some compromise of design and execution. It did what was expected, but in no way matched the performance of the 17-55mm zoom from about the same time. But that lens is only a little more than 3:1, and it weighs a lot more than the 18-200 did.

So it's a matter of what you need and want, and what's most important to you. As we used to say at work, TANSTAAFL (pronounced as spelled)--There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

I'm in no way bashing Tamron, they actually calibrated this lens under warranty and I had it back in about a week.
It was a Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC
Sony 24-70mm F/4

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I have a Tamron 18-200mm Zoom for my APS-C Pentax cameras. I find it a mediocre lens at best. So I rarely use it and stick with my various Pentax branded lenses. High end Tamrons seem to be rated highly, but it seems the older and pedestrian models are not great. A Sony-Zeiss lens should and better be great with its price!

ricardo00

Agree with Larry, there is no free lunch. I too bought the Nikon 18-200mm to use with my first DSLR, the Nikon D200. It was great to have a single lens that could do such a range of focal lengths. However when I got my first prime lens, I was shocked to see how much sharper it was. Hopefully, you learned this lesson early on in your photographic journey.

damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

This post is to show the actual difference, not to bash any specific product. I spent so much time trying to correct pictures with Topaz AI. Now, it's a different game.

Bill_de Loc: US

Next time try to get the framing at least close if you are looking for a comparison.

---

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

No bashing is being offered or committed. You have demonstrated on a pretty convincing manner that there are meaningful differences between and among lenses. In some cases, those differences are not due simply to a new and improved design of one of the lenses, but to the results of limitations in capability coming from compromises in design.

Interestingly, Nikon also offered a 18-70mm DX zoom at about this same time that performed about the same as the 18-200. It was also not a particularly "cheap" lens, selling for over $300 in 2006. But it did employ some economies of design, materials, and manufacture, which led to less than ideal performance. Turns out it's a pretty good lens for IR photography, however.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Whilst I will not comment on 'differences' between the two lens I have questions regarding your testing method,

a) Why is the framing so different?
b) Why have you undertaken a comparison test in such different lighting conditions?
c) Did you use manual focus to ensure ultimate focus on the same spot on the subject or rely on AF?

User ID

Your "a, b, and c" concerns are the tip of an iceberg of reasons why all these amateurish "lab tests", "comparisons", etc are so foolishly nonsensical that even the critiquing of theeir obvious flaws, oversights, and shortfalls is just a waste of time.

Its not as if a few questions would lead to a few tweaks that would put these techno wannabees on the right track to meaningful results. The amateurish need to mimic "test analysis sites" is just theatre or fantasy. Its nowhere close to being legit knowledgeable testing that needs only a few minor flaws straightened out. Discussing said flaws is pretty pointless. Discussing such "reported results" is equally pointless.

Look at the example photos provided in this instance. Theyre just laffable. The difference in IQ is huge. Differences in lens quality can be visible but are not THAT huge. Clearly user error is way too obviously in the mix here. Theres nothing to pick apart and analyze. Its just trash "science" worthy to be ignored.

User ID

.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Unfortunately the comparison is not conclusive. Two many variables to consider, can't do it from ONE image. Would require a lot more testing to prove your point.

alphonso49uk

Topaz sharpen would havebeen a lot cheaper

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have never used a Tamron 18-200. I use the first version of the Nikon 18-200 with my D7000 and although it can zoom on its own if placed up or down I am very satisfied with the images I get from it. I can say the same of the 18-70 that I also own, it gives me excellent files.
You cannot compare a professional zoom to a consumer zoom, just look at the prices and look at the performance. All zooms have compromises, the professional ones are better corrected. If you want optimum sharpness a prime lens is the way to go and not all primes will perform the same.

You did not mention how the Tamron performed after it was adjusted, hopefully sharpness improved but it is still a consumer lens.