rusty66

I have had one for about 6 months and use it with a Nikon 7000. I love it. I really love my Nikon 80-200 2.8 but for many things the short end of that lens is too long and the long end is too short. When I was about to pull the trigger on the Tamron, I spoke to B&H and they encouraged me to take advantage of their 30day return if I didn't like it. I'm not prone to buy something like that with the thought of returning it but since I was pretty sure I would like it I went ahead. It covers all my focal length desires, is light and produces images with which I'm very pleased. I have recommended it to several friends.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

The 18-400 is on my acquisition list, it get's good reviews, doesn't weigh a lot, handy size.

Toby

You obviously have not used one. I have had one for a year or so and love it. the only time it is off of the camera is when I use one of my f2.8's. Now those are heavy. The Tamron weighs 1.6 lb.

leftj Loc: Texas

I had it when I shot Canon 80D and I was a very good lens. Have since moved on to Fuji and sold all my Canon stuff.

djstaib Loc: Southwest Georgia

Great lens, may need some small focus adjustments with the tap-in console but generally great all-purpose. BTW it is not the fastest lens @ 3.5 to 6.4 aperture. Enjoy

Metis407 Loc: Canada

I have had one for about 6 months. Had to send to Tamron to calibrate the lens to my camera, Canon 77D. Now works very well, and not too heavy. I think worth the money.

DBQ49er Loc: Dubuque, IA

I ordered it on Friday from KEH. Used and rated excellent with hood and caps for $489.00. Now for the truck to arrive. I hope it is what you all state it is. My longest was 300mm and it did not go down to 18mm, so it might be my standard go to lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

See Bryan's review of the Tamron lens here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-18-400mm-f-3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-HLD-Lens.aspx

Note: He appears to have done his testing of the lens mostly on an 80D.

At that site you can also compare the specs of the lens and test shots done with it against almost any other lens you wish.

If you bought it with kit lens, your 80D probably came with the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. Compare that against the Tamron and you'll see pretty close to the same image quality in the center of the image at most focal lengths, but serious loss of IQ toward the corners of images with the Tamron. Even wide open, the Canon lens is a little to a lot sharper in the midframe and corners of images. The Canon lens also shows less chromatic aberration. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1145&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1045&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

For the longer focal lengths, compare with the Canon EF 100-400mm IS USM "II" and you'll see even greater difference. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1145&Camera=963&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&Sample=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The facts are:

The Tamron 18-400mm is a pretty amazing for an "all in one" lens. It covers a range that's incredible and does it pretty darned well.

However, ALL lenses of that type have to compromise in a number of ways. Less extreme zooms can make for noticeably better image quality.

Putting aside image quality comparisons, Bryan also notes that the Tamron is a fairly slow or "dark" lens... It requires "good light" since it starts at f/3.5 at 18mm but has max aperture of f/5.6 by 89mm and f/6.3 from 117mm onward. This is actually pretty similar to the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM at focal lengths they share. The Canon 100-400mm is no "speed demon" lens either, starts out at f/4.5 at 100mm to 134mm, then drops to f/5 but maintains that to 312mm and is f/5.6 after that. In other words, the Canon 100-400 II is 2/3 to a full stop brighter than the 18-400mm, through much of the focal length range they share. Of course, the Canon lens is not only more expensive, it's considerably larger, too. It has to be, in order to have a larger aperture at those longer focal lengths.

For what it is, the Tamron 18-400mm is a pretty darned good lens. But lenses of that type inevitably have to compromise in various ways. If I were forced to only carry the very minimum of equipment, I might consider an "all in one" lens like the Tamron 18-400mm. But otherwise I would not want one. There are just too many compromises for my liking. You have to decide if you can live with those compromises.

Rickoshay Loc: Southern California

I have been using one on my 80D for a couple of weeks. I like it and for me it is generally sharp enough. Zooming is smooth and hitch free. The lens appears to be well built and nothing rattles or moves around. It is not super heavy and is fairly easy to carry around on casual day trips and light hiking. I am a hobbyist with my main target being primarily astrophotography and then outdoor/nature type stuff. I have other lenses for nighttime sky images. I have noticed the Tamron 18-400mm likes good light. But who doesn't?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I played with one for a few minutes before I sold it for a friend. I felt that it was cheaply made, lightweight plastic and that the zoom wasn't very smooth. Other than that, it worked okay except for some softness around the edges at 400mm, pincushioning and CR. I'd expect nothing less with an inexpensive lens.

leftj Loc: Texas

Guess all the other reviewers are wrong.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Obviously you haven't owned any really good lenses to compare this too. After all, the best camera looks like you've owned is a Canon 80D and the Tamron 18-400 lens. Now on to Fuji for you. I hope you went with the XT-3. That's what my friend went with after I sold his 80D and his 18-400 Tamron.

That said, I've owned almost all the best stuff made by Canon. I've had both 100-400 Canon lenses, both 70-200 f/2.8 Canon lenses, both 24-70 f/2.8 Canon lenses, both 16-35 f/2.8 Canon lenses, Canon 7D, 7D II, 5D III, 5DIV, 1D IV and some earlier Canon DSLR's. I still own the 300 f/2.8 IS by Canon and a 500mm f/4 Canon lens. So you can see, I've owned the best of the best and I've tried many 3rd party lenses and NONE stack up to OEM L series professional lenses. I gave my opinion to the OP, and you respond with a snide remark as though I don't know what I'm talking about. Why don't you do some comparisons with OEM lenses verses 3rd party lenses and then get back to me, or better yet the OP of this thread. He's the one that wants to know. Just because you owned a Tamron 18-400 at one time doesn't mean that you've EVER put it up against another lens to know the differences. I have!

leftj Loc: Texas

No one is saying this Tamron lens is comparable to pro lenses that cost 2 to 3 times what the Tamron costs. If that’s what the OP wanted and could afford it they wouldn’t be looking at the Tamron. However the Tamron 18-400mm is not the piece of junk that you described it as. For the money it is a very good lens.

hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico

Your 'probably' is incorrect: "Despite being an all-in-one zoom lens that achieves 400mm ultra-telephoto, Model B028 is light and compact with a total length of 4.8in. and a weight of 24.9oz" (From DP Review). Nowhere near the "4pounds" you think it "probably" weighs.

Marilia Loc: Dallas, TX

I'm a small frame female 5'2" in my 70s, my camera is a Canon T5i with a Tamron 16-300mm, perfect all around lens for my needs and travel! 👍