The Rev

I second the support for the Tamron 18-270 with VC. I use it most of the time and recently used it exclusively on safari in Tanzania. Great lens.

ahzwizerd2 Loc: Willowbrook, ca

But is there a way I can buy that lens with VR from some place for under $300 I already have a 18-135mm nikon lens but without VR I need VR

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I had an 18-200 that had focus and aberration problems so I got rid of it and haven't purchased another Tamron. Being a Canon guy I own 4 Canon lenses now that suit my needs so I wouldn't buy any others anyway. Mine did not have VR or IS which ever Tamron calls it.

Good luck with this lens. Personally I'd buy the Nikon.

ahzwizerd2 Loc: Willowbrook, ca

Thank you I just want to trade my nikon 18-135mm without VR fot one that does. I cant spend anymore money I just bought a nikon D7100 camera

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Lots of people swear by Tamron lenses... I don't for the reasons I wrote about earlier. You may have a good experience, difficult to tell.

Anyway, good luck

walterh Loc: Seaford LI, NY

I have a Tamron 18-270 lens it has VR. I use it almost always on a Nikon D7100

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Why not look at the comparable Sigma. They are discontinuing it and selling it for about $350. They are making way for the new 18-300 macro for $576. I could not find any reviews for the new lens yet. Sigma and Tamron are giving Canon and Nikon a run for their money.

Remember that they all make good and bad models.

BillH Loc: Lancaster County PA

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 with vibration control. Great lens! I also have a Tamron 60 mm f2 macro. You can't go wrong with Tamron.
Bill

scaltony

I have 2 Tamron 28-300 lenses. One with VC ( Tamron's VR) and 1 without. Both are very good lenses, especially if you are only carrying 1.

NormPR

I have various lenses used on my last camera (Conon T2i)and my new Canon 70D and have been using the Tamron 18-270 PZD about 90% of the time on both cameras and only take it off for macro or wide angle photos. The lens has come down in price considerably since I bought it 3 1/2 years ago and would buy another if this one should become damaged. Other defects are covered by a 5 (or 6) year warranty. I recommend it highly and the extra dollars will pay off with some great photos.

jfn007 Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.

I agree. I love my Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II. It cost $449.00 US new.

ahzwizerd2 Loc: Willowbrook, ca

Im a sports photographer and need a dependable lens with VR the pics have to be sharp I really need a FX lens

ahzwizerd2 Loc: Willowbrook, ca

Im a sports photographer and need a dependable lens with VR the pics have to be sharp I really need a FX lens

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Please don't take this the wrong way. If you really are a serious sports photographer, I'd think instead of buying several slower lenses, you should get the 70-200 2.8 VR. Yes, it costs more, but if you really want tack sharp, that would be the way to go.

Here's my reason. Focusing with a fast lens in low light is more accurate. I'm not saying that you will, or should shoot at 2.8, but the lens focuses at 2.8, then the aperture snaps down to whatever you picked to shoot the shot. All in all, it is just a better lens.

If a refurbished name brand lens is out of your price range, take a look at Sigma. I had one, it took great images. The only thing about the sigma VR (Image stabilization, or whatever Sigma calls it...still VR to me) makes a sound as it kicks in, and it bothered me during weddings. It wasn't nearly as loud as a shutter, but for some reason, it made the hair stand up on my neck whenever it locked in. If I dropped another Nikon (yes, long, sad story) 70-200 2.8, and couldn't find a good refurbished or great condition used Nikon, at this point, I wouldn't hesitate to go back to Sigma.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

You do not have to be a serious sports photographer and any other kind to appreciate this lens. Between the terrific optical quality and speed, the lens is a winner. I have the Sigma and swear by it. The sharpness is delightful and I do not think it is that noisy. Someone recommended a video on the Canon, Sigma and Tamron versions. Except for the build, the latter two were comparable if not superior to the Canon. Knowing this, I wish I bought the Tamron because it had the least chromatic aberration and the greatest sharpness or contrast. Hard to know which.