Tamron announces 15x zoom lens

[Admin]

http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0807/Tamron/Tamron18-270.gifTamron, the masters of the superzoom, has today announced the development of its most ambitious lens yet, the characteristically snappily-titled AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro. Designed exclusively for digital SLRs with APS-C sensors, this optic offers a 35mm-equivalent range of 27-405mm, perfect for owners of megazoom compacts looking to upgrade to an SLR, and incorporates the company's 'Vibration Control' optical image stabilisation system. To achieve the spectacular zoom range (That the company is claiming as the longest in the World),Tamron has used all its design nous, including the use of aspheric elements and low dispersion glass to keep chromatic aberration under control.

Newsfeed courtesy of RobGalbraith : Click for more... (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08073001Tamron18270.asp)

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Will be interesting to see how soft that lens is

[purplepaul]

Will be interesting to see how soft that lens is

I was just thinking the same.

[pxl8]

Perhaps there's no focus ring as it really didn't make any difference anyway?

There was a report about the lens having a real sweet spot but it was retracted when the reviewer realised it was just a gummi bear stuck to the barrel :nuts:

:coat:

[Slapo]

Perhaps it would be more sensible to wait for full resolution samples than to jump to conclusions?
I don't doubt that its optical quality will be below most smaller range zooms and perhaps all primes, but the 18-250 mm Tamron is said to be better than most 18-200 mm and the samples from it I've seen so far indicate that it's a fairly good lens for the money and zoom range.

[Kev M]

where would be the fun in that though?

[Monkey]

Perhaps it would be more sensible to wait for full resolution samples than to jump to conclusions?
I don't doubt that its optical quality will be below most smaller range zooms and perhaps all primes, but the 18-250 mm Tamron is said to be better than most 18-200 mm and the samples from it I've seen so far indicate that it's a fairly good lens for the money and zoom range.

ive read some awful reviews on the 18-250, so i cant see this being any better.

[Slapo]

I've read some awful reviews on the 18-250...

Got any links?
I'll try to get some myself too.

[Slapo]

Here's a few links:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_18_250_last.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4110/lens-test-tamron-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-macro.html
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/tamron18250/tamron18250.html
http://www.phototestcenter.com/html/tamron_18-250.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309

Samples:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=12718 (bear in mind that some of those who use it don't really have the foggiest about what they're doing).

[Monkey]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_18_250.html

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/293-tamron-af-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-macro-canon-lens-test-report--review



and ive just remembered its f6.3 at the lond end, soooooo SLOW

[Monkey]

Here's a few links:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_18_250_last.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4110/lens-test-tamron-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-macro.html
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/tamron18250/tamron18250.html
http://www.phototestcenter.com/html/tamron_18-250.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309

Samples:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=12718 (bear in mind that some of those who use it don't really have the foggiest about what they're doing).

images dont look bad at all, ive no personal experience of it, i just read a few bad things about it.

[Slapo]

and ive just remembered its f6.3 at the lond end, soooooo SLOW

It's a cheap lens AND a superzoom, you know. Of course it's not a fast lens, it's a multi-purpose lens and that's what it's good at being. That said, most of the reviews say it's fairly good in the 18-70 range, being decent optically if you go further and you stop down a bit.

That said, our opinions probably differ on what we consider good, don't they :p

[Slapo]

images dont look bad at all, ive no personal experience of it, i just read a few bad things about it.

Well, yeah, it's a mostly plastic lens that's not particularly fast at anything, but if you have a bit of time and some light available, it does seem to give pretty decent results.
I've been considering it for next year's lens purchase, as I often find myself not willing to swap lenses in places where there are many people or where dust could get in.

If the new one is at least as good as the 18-250, I'll probably start saving soon.

[Monkey]

That said, our opinions probably differ on what we consider good, don't they :p

That i cant anser as i dont know you:shrug:

I know they have their place, im trying one out at the moment ( see sig ) and the Nikon 18-200 VR seems very good, so much so i think im gonna ditch my 70-300.

The problem with f6.3, if for a decent result you are 2 stops down, which would be f13. as theres no VR, you will need a fast shutter speed, at f13 a shutter speed of 1/250s would need alot of light.

[Slapo]

Yeah, you'd need lots of light or a tripod :)
I wouldn't ditch the Sigma 70-300, the extra reach can be handy at times. Swapping it for a 70-300 VR Nikkor would make more sense, I think. Or for a 100-300 mm F4 Sigma.

Reading after myself, I think I was being kind of pushy and generally not exactly nice.
Sorry about that.

[Monkey]

the 70-300 VR is a good idea, but i actually fancy an 80-400 VR next