New Tamron 18-200 lens

macs

macs

Messages
794
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone got one of these with the image stabilisation? Any good?

I know its only about a month old but I'd have thought there would be a review of it somewhere on the net but can't find anything. Only ones I can find are for the older version which doesn't have IS. Anyone know where I can find one?

Cheers
Rich
 
Hi Macs,

New here and only had a DSLR for a few months - so total beginner. Bought one of these the other day for a Nikon D3200 and have fired off a few test point and shoot pictures whilst visiting my father today. Not had chance to use it to be honest, but saw your post a few days back and just took the below for you if it helps?

All taken in very overcast conditions and taken straight from the camera and uploaded to the links below. There's also a review in the bottom link.

Cheers

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=36479307696949365828

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=59827308268911473328

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=08855674461398525459

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=02837111984329718490

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/10/tamron-18-200mm-vc-review/
 
I don't suppose anyone actually ended up buying this lens?
 
Me. I bought one to use on a D300. I must say, I am pretty impressed with it. It is very light and feels a bit cheaply made, but it is only £169. After using mine on his D7100, my Dad also bought one but sent it back because it wasn't sharp.
I think Tamrons usual QC issues are still around!
If you can get a good used Nikon 18-200vr, I would go for that though, but if you get a good copy of the Tamron, you will like it.
 
Thanks for that Allan. I'm still swaying between an 18-200 and a 17-50 which is more limited but should be sharper all round (and would be f2.8 of course).

Decisions decisions!
 
Last edited:
Ian W said:
Thanks for that Allan. I'm still swaying between an 18-200 and a 17-50 which is more limited but should be sharper all round (and would be f2.8 of course).

Decisions decisions!
Click to expand...
What do you normally shoot?

At one stage I was looking at the same two lenses, in the end I went for the Tamron 17-50f 2.8 non vc and love the lens.
 
sep9001 said:
What do you normally shoot?

At one stage I was looking at the same two lenses, in the end I went for the Tamron 17-50f 2.8 non vc and love the lens.
Click to expand...
More often than not I'm shooting portraits, buildings or landscapes hence I'm not sure I actually need the extra reach. It's more likely a 'nice to have' than an essential.

So many different permutations. So far I've looked at a one for all 18-200, to a 17-55, to potentially a wide angle lens and a 70-300. I'm still no further forward tbh :(
 
For portraits and general walk about the 17-50 will be fine, only downside is you have to use your feet for the zoom.[emoji1]
 
sep9001 said:
For portraits and general walk about the 17-50 will be fine, only downside is you have to use your feet for the zoom.[emoji1]
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. My 35mm prime is my most used lens so am used to doing that anyway! [emoji4]
 
Ian W said:
My thoughts exactly. My 35mm prime is my most used lens so am used to doing that anyway! [emoji4]
Click to expand...
I sold both my 50mm and 35mm when I bought the 17-50 as they were not getting used.
 
sep9001 said:
I sold both my 50mm and 35mm when I bought the 17-50 as they were not getting used.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, think I was leaning towards the 17-50 anyway and this has confirmed it's probably best for me.

Now just to decide which one, though I think it'll likely be the same as yours in the non-VC Tamron.
 
Ian W said:
Thanks for this, think I was leaning towards the 17-50 anyway and this has confirmed it's probably best for me.

Now just to decide which one, though I think it'll likely be the same as yours in the non-VC Tamron.
Click to expand...
What camera body do you have?
 
Ian W said:
A Nikon D7100 :)
Click to expand...
Cool, yes the non vc will work fine on that body but you will have to look for a sharp copy though.

If looking new then you may have to get the vc one or also worth having a look at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8.
 
sep9001 said:
Cool, yes the non vc will work fine on that body but you will have to look for a sharp copy though.

If looking new then you may have to get the vc one or also worth having a look at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've checked out both the Tamron and Sigma and both seem to have iffy QC so buying second hand would be a concern.

May just have to go new to ensure the warranty back up is there.
 
I have no experience of the lenses under discussion, but do have both a 16-50mm f2.8 & an 18-250mm f3.5-f6.3 (on a crop sensor). I use both about equally. If it's a bright day and I'm taking the camera with me just in case I find something to photograph, nothing specific in mind, and often the camera will never leave the bag, then I take the 18-250mm. If it's a dim overcast day I'll take the 16-50mm. I'll also take the 18-250mm to outdoor events even on a dim day as an accessory lens. When I'm just roaming around with no specific shots in mind it means I'll get all those transient unexpected opportunistic shots I'd otherwise miss because I had the wrong lens on the camera and not enough time to change it.
 
And that's my issue. I want to avoid the need to swap lenses if I can and still have the 35mm for low light stuff.

Which 18-250 do you use? Is it sharp (enough) throughout the focal range?
 
Ian W said:
And that's my issue. I want to avoid the need to swap lenses if I can and still have the 35mm for low light stuff.

Which 18-250 do you use? Is it sharp (enough) throughout the focal range?
Click to expand...

It's the Sony 18-250mm, said to be made for Sony by Tamron, and optically identical to the Tamron. The later Tamron upgrades, the 18-270mm and the 16-300mm may be superior in more than zoom range. When the 18-250mm was originally introduced it was said to be so much better than its 18-200mm contemporaries that one reviewer said it defied the laws of optics. I found AF at 18mm a bit iffy and preferred manual focus when aiming for maximum sharp detail. At f8 in the centre of the image it's hard to tell it from a good prime at f8. By 200mm it's getting a bit soft, and it's difficult to see more detail at 250mm than the same shot at 200mm upsized. 200-250mm have such shallow DoF that all my DSLRs have required a small correction to achieve sharpest AF. If you want best edge to edge sharpness f11 is sometimes necessary, which is not quite as sharp in the centre.
 
How are you finding this lens then @macs ? I blind purchased a used Canon 18-200, but it's heavier than I was expecting. I've heard the Tamron is quite light which would be better for me as my 11 year old niece would be using it too.
 
Hi Mandoo,

The Tamron is pretty good. I really like the range of lengths that I now have. I find a lot of my shots when using it are between 35mm and about 70mm so I might struggled with my 18-55 lens. The oof effect is nice and smooth and the compression is great too. Overall I'm very happy with it, especially for the money.

I don't really have much to compare it to, and I'm no professional, but I did borrow the Nikon 18-200 and the Tamron is much lighter.

Also the larger lens makes me feel like I'm not just an ameteur with the kit lens!
 
Hi @macs how are you getting on with this lens? I am thinking of purchasing this lens to almost replace my 18-55mm Nikon lens but I keep reading about soft focus in the higher focal ranges. I am a shallow depth of field fan and this lens for the price sounds great for what I want it for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top