gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Anyone have an opinion on the above lens. I have not used Tamron products and thinking about trading in my Canon 100-400 f4.5L IS USM and for a Canon EF 1.4 Extender II Teleconverter for a lighter lens with the same reach. I use both 6D and 60D cameras but prefer the 60D with the crop sensor for the additional reach. Yes, I did a search above and found one posting on this lens back in June last year. The comments were so negative that I didn't finish the thread. I am not a professional but show my pictures to groups and recently placed a 16 X 24 photo of a moon shot with a doctor's office. My main concern is reducing the weight while maintaining sharpness. The Canon lens weights 3.04 lbs and the Tamron is about half that. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks
/George

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'd rely on professional reviews and take their negative comments seriously. How important those negatives are to you is what will help you decide.

Some info -
https://kenrockwell.com/tamron/18-400mm.htm
https://digital-photography-school.com/review-tamron-18-400mm-zoom-lens/
https://www.pcmag.com/review/358561/tamron-18-400mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-hld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzkaYjIloOU

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Thank you Jerry. Appreciate your help very much.

whwiden

I am a fan of the Tamron 28-300mm full frame lens. I too am considering this crop sensor lens. I am a fan of convenience lenses for travel. But you have to be very aware of limitations. Given time, space and weight, I would use my 24mm and 85mm primes every time. They are much better for large prints. However, for daytime travel photos, at f/8 to f/16, the convenience is often a deciding factor. An open top bus tour, vacationing with a group of friends, flights on small aircraft to remote places come to mind. I also am considering the Nikon version of the 28-300mm because of the greater functionality for in camera corrections. In that vein, I would look at the Nikon 18-300mm offerings for crop sensor. 400mm is nice but not wildly different than 300mm.

The truth is that the performance of these lenses on modern cameras is quite excellent compared to options 5 or 10 years ago, particularly with good shot discipline--shoot at higher ISO and shutter speed, do not over rely on VR, etc.

We often treat every shot as if it must be printed large--when the truth is that this is the exception by a wide margin.

I am interested in this lens as a lower cost alternative to the Sony RX 10 iv. I think it might work for that purpose, but not sure.

I wish this Tamron had a better advertised VR.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As always, I suggest rent before you buy to satisfy yourself if it is sharp enough for you.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

I read professional reviews which were mixed - Ken Rockwell's was simply dismissive since the lens doesn't have the Nikon label on it. Then I started reading real-life accounts from people here on UHH who actually use it. B/C of them I bought the lens and am very happy with it. On our recent trip to Edinburgh it was used almost exclusively over the other two lenses I brought along and got quite a workout in various conditions, especially night shots where it performed well.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Thank you Sue. Your first hand experience with the lens on trips is very helpful. On our trips I generally end up using one (24-105 f4.0) or at most two (a 16-35 f2.8) for some shots. The 100-400 stays home and isn't missed.
The Canon 100-400 is just too heavy to hand hold and get tack sharp images. Sounds like the Tamron lens would work in the f8-f11 range and produce sharp enough images. Thank you very much for your response. /George

whwiden

I recall that Ken Rockwell claims to have used this lens on a D3300 or D3400 recently at Yosemite--and promised a more extensive review. I also recall that he recently has been fairly positive on other Tamron lenses--a bit of a change for him. If this review matters to you, I would nose around/wait a bit. I could not find the promised newer review online.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

I read the Rockwell review back in September - hope he has indeed done a more objective review of this lens.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

I think he rates it about a 3.5. Doesn't seem to like third party lenses, strictly Canon and Nikon.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Is there any reason to go with the 18-400? That's quite a zoom range. I just purchased the Tamron 100-400 for my daughter, and though I haven't done a lot of personal testing, she's been getting some good photos, both in outdoor soccer and indoor basketball. Like you said, the Tamron is much lighter than the corresponding Nikon 80-400, at about half the price. Weight was also an issue in the purchase. I didn't want the camera/lens combo to be too heavy for my daughter. The D7500 and 100-400 are perfect.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

Hope you don't mind - here are a couple examples of shots with the 18-400.

Taken at a distance of about a quarter mile - f/8, 50mm

(Download)

f/4.5, 1/40 sec, 35mm

(Download)

rmacilroy Loc: pompano beach, fl

Beauiful wonderfull lighting. Castle is great never seen it before. great capture.. rob

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Don't hold up upon magnification.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Very nice examples Sue. At 1/2 mile the image is great. Actually love both of them . Were they taken hand held? I magnified the image as much as I could get it and building looks a little soft at 400mm, which is pretty good without a tripod. For the range the lens offers it appears to be a great take with on a trip. I have to use a tripod with my 100-400 otherwise the image is really out of focus.