Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I first purchased the Tamron and was not impressed and returned it after 2 weeks. I then got Nikkor 18-200, which was better and used it for a couple of years as a walkaround lens. But the kit lenses were always sharper, so I decided to put up with the lens changing and get better results with no compromise on image quality. The 18-200 was marginal at 200mm.

Moles Loc: South Carolina

I bought a Tamrom 18-270 and I didn't like it. The zoom ring was stiff at some focal lengths. I still have it, anyone interested?

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Never used those Nikons but, after much checking around, got a Sigma 18-250 for my D7100 and like it a lot. Lots of compromises, but, at anything under 20x30 it works just fine.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The Tamron 18-270 PZD model B008 is very compact and light for a super zoom and is far from the hefty chunk you suggest. While somewhat heavier than a single kit lens, it's lighter than the pair you would have to carry around to equal it's focal range.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

But now compare it to the new Nikkor 18-200 VR ll. Your Tamy will not be close. Mine has not been off my D7000 since we left Kauai last December. If you must go longer then the Nikkor 18-300 VR.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Yeah, and:

starting at the top left:

Image is soft - expected it was shot at F16 - diffraction limited sharpness

top right:
lots of CA, bottom edge not close to being sharp

second row left:
ok shot, some softness at the right side, some CA along the top of the bird

second row, right:
ok shot, somewhat soft.

third row left:
good result - crisp and sharp throughout - this lens is more than acceptable at 42mm

third row right:
same comments as at 42mm, this lens is better at 25mm than it is at longer focal lengths

fourth row left:
soft, soft, soft

fourth row right:
ok image, some CA

bottom left:
edges could be better, center is good

bottom right:
pretty good at this focal length, no noticeable CA.

This lens is better at focal lengths under 100mm, and it is similar to the one that I owned for 2 weeks several years ago. The Nikkor 18-200 was arguably better at shorter focal lengths, and slightly better at 200mm.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Why not do a search in this forum for the "Tamron 18-270mm lens" You will get a long list of what peoples experience with this lens. I own one myself and use it regularly on both my 50D, and 7D. I can't use it on my 6D because it is made for a cropped sensor. Tamron is presently developing a updated version with even more zoom range. So, go to the Tamron web page and see what that says. In any event, don't stew over this lens, it's cheap enough, and it is what it is, a great walk around lens. It's not the sharpest lens on the block, don't compare apples to guavas, don't expect prime lens performance vs a short to long range zoom. The Tamron will give you "good" quality photos.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I have had all 3 of the lenses you mention. The Nikons are better lenses for clarity & sharpness but I understand the convenience of a single walk around lens, which is why I bought the Tamron. It does have a really good range of focal lengths and is reasonably good for most shots. With it's piezo drive, it is also really small & light, which along with the huge range is a big selling point. It is however fairly soft in the corners. I sold the Tamron because of this and bought the Nikon 18-200. Though slightly shorter in focal length, I found it much better since it is much sharper. If you want a lens that is really easy to leave attached to your camera, covers a huge range, is light and semi-compact, and produces decent images, then the Tamron is an ok lens. But I would wait a bit and see how the new Tamron 16-300 stacks up. It will be relatively compact, have an unprecedented range, and hopefully have a second generation version of optics. Will probably be reasonably priced too.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

just like in the film days, you have a mirror and the shutter between the world and your film or sensor.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Never been a fan of super zooms.... Prefer to have a lens that's better throughout it's range than one with a huge range & sacrifices (which are there, the laws of optics ensures that) as I print large, crop images & pixel peep as well......