 | Tamron 18-250 review |
| Tamron 18-250 review |
Tamron 18-250 review | ||
| First I've seen | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #1 Added: 2007-05-08 00:45:11 | |
| Pop Photo gave it good marks. On a 1.5x camera that's a 27 - 375mm walk around lens. Tamron 18 - 250 | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #2 Added: 2007-05-18 23:12:45 | |
| It's been reviewed in one of our paper magazines too (Practical Photography), they give it an overall of 4/5. "Perhaps the best travel lens on the market. The great price makes this a superb option" IQ 4/5, Performance 3/5. On whatever they tested it on, they said that IQ was only average wide open at all focal lengths, but one stop down it rated as sharp (highest rating) at all focal lengths. Here's the breakdown: -------18mm **f/3.5 *** *** *** ** *f/22 -------55mm **f/5 *** *** *** *** *** ** *f/32 --------90mm **f/5.6 *** *** ** ** *f/36 --------250mm **f/6.3 *** *** ** * *f/40 Drawbacks? Noisy, non-clutch AF. Noisy MF. Some vignetting wide open. [Edited: 23:14 - AdrianW ] | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #3 Added: 2007-05-19 00:14:23 | |
| Thanks for that. Do you know which brand camera they used for the test? Apparently the lens is slow to focus and noisy with the Sony mount. Nikon, Canon, and Pentax mounts generally report fast AF and no one so far has spoken of it being noisy except with the Sony mount. | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #4 Added: 2007-05-19 01:27:36 | |
| None of their lens tests mention what they were tested on, which makes the stopped down IQ info pretty much useless - as diffraction is a function of pixel size... That said, the other two tests in the magazine were for Nikon and EF-S mount lenses, and in any of the articles where cameras can be seen show it's either a Canon EOS 400D/XTi, or a Nikon D80, and they review the Sigma SD14 - but since the lense isn't available as Sigma mount, I think we can discount that one. I'm going to write them a letter asking them to include that info in future issues - it's trivial for them to add, and it does make a significant difference. [Edited: 01:28 - AdrianW ] | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #5 Added: 2007-05-19 01:31:57 | |
| OK, update - looking at the 100% crops I suspect it's a 10MP camera. Interestingly, the Nikon test looks like a 6MP from the relative sizes of the crops. So, I think it's likely to be a 400D, but we'll have to wait until they reply to know for sure. | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #6 Added: 2007-05-19 04:09:29 | |
| Here's some of the email that I sent to the reviewer who was using a Sony A100 and reported slow and noisy AF. --- (Fred Miranda site...) On the Miranda site two of the posters say that autofocus is fast. One says that it's "not the fastest". http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309 (There's a fourth reviewer now who also liked the lens. All used Canons.) --- (Professional Photo) "Because of the AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 lens' internal focus mechanism, manual focusing with the lens was fast and crisp, but I rarely used it that way because the autofocus with both EOS bodies was fast and crisp." http://prophoto.typepad.com/bonus/2007/04/pro_review_tamr.html --- (Bob Atkins - for what it's worth...) Bob doesn't mention speed or noise. (Or I missed the place where he commented. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_18_250.html --- (Pop Photo) "AF action was fast and quiet." http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4110/lens-test-tamron-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-macro.html --- What I'm picking up is that the 18-250 is clearly better than the 18-200. Even the Sony reviewer said that the image quality was very good and AF, although slow, was very accurate. [Edited: 04:20 - BobTrips ] | ||
| Justin Watson (Justin) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #7 Added: 2007-05-23 07:59:11 | |
| I get the general idea that the 18-250 is better than the 18-200 as well. For now I'm sticking to traveling to Central America this year with a 16-45, 50-200 and 100macro (maybe a 50 1.4 too). My issue is what bag to get.... was looking at Lowepro Rover AW II. | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #8 Added: 2007-05-23 15:43:57 | |
| 30 is the new 50. Seems to me. While 50mm was a pretty useful focal length for fSLRs I find it too long for APS-sensor dSLRs. I often have to change out my 50-200 when shooting in close quarters. I'd rather have something like a 30mm ~1.8 as my low light lens. Of course with very usable ISO 800 and IS the need for a big aperture is not as important as it use to be with a fSLR and ISO 100 slide film. | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #9 Added: 2007-05-23 20:01:36 | |
| Justin: Have a look at the LowePro Slingshot range - it's much easier to use on the go IMO. Bob: Yup, in FOV terms it is. It's somewhat handy that the old 50s now occupy the short portrait range though - a 50mm f1.8 becomes an effective 80mm f1.8, which has traditionally been the portrait lens of choice. It's a shame that the 30mm fast primes are generally more expensive than the 50s though... | ||
| Justin Watson (Justin) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #10 Added: 2007-05-24 09:06:10 | |
| Yes well i'd love the FA31 or even FA43, but i got the FA50 1.4 as its cheap. I don't think I'll need it however. As you say Bob nice ISO 800 and SR helps. I'd love to take my FA*200 2.8 but its too heavy to carry around so I'll stick to the DA50-200 with the DA16-45 for wide angle stuff. The 100mm macro is for wildlife, plenty of frogs and butterflies I've been told! I looked at the slingshot, but i really wanted to need just one bag, however i found the non camera section of the Lowepro Rover AW II a bit small. Looked at some Crumpler bags too. Same issue. I'm thinking I'll need to get a compact camera bag now as well as a daypack. So the slingshot 200 may be back on the cards and i may carry a shoulder sling bag for guidebooks, water, suncream, insect repellent etc etc.... | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #11 Added: 2007-05-25 17:49:45 | |
| interesting. your 200mm f/2.8 must be heavier than mine - either that or we have different definitions of heavy ;) | ||
| Justin Watson (Justin) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #12 Added: 2007-05-26 07:51:00 | |
| Its officially 785g, and easily hand held. Its by far my favorite lens and alot more versatile than people think, I've got great results from flowers, wildlife and sports with this lens. However, given I'll backpacking and staying in accommodation towards the cheaper end of the spectrum I'm not so sure about carrying it around as well as worrying about theft. | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #13 Added: 2007-05-27 13:25:27 | |
| Really depends on how much you'll use it I guess. I carried mine Canon 200/2.8 around when I went RTW in 2001/2002. I took a 65L main pack, and a LowePro Orion Trekker for the camera stuff. I think it was worth the weight, but I tended to stay in motels and lower end hotels in general, rather than dorm type places... Do you think 2.8 is necessary for the shooting you're expecting to do? [Edited: 13:25 - AdrianW ] | ||
| Justin Watson (Justin) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #14 Added: 2007-05-28 10:28:21 | |
| I'm going to be in jungles and rainforest's when i'll need the 200 the most. So i expect light to be dim. It will probably be a last minute decision i guess. It has its own bag so maybe if i carry it in my pack until i get to the jungles.... ah well i'm not going til october, still plenty of time to procrastinate about this decision!! | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #15 Added: 2007-05-31 02:29:21 | |
| In which case, I'd be testing to see what the highest acceptable ISO for you is - if it allows a slow lens, take that - if it'll only allow a fast lens... | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #16 Added: 2007-06-05 19:58:35 | |
| I'm in the process of helping my sister buy a dSLR. That caused me to check reviews for the Tamron 18-250 (for a Canon or Pentax) vs. going Nikon to get their so highly regarded 18-200 VR. The Popular Photography tests were very interesting. They gave higher marks to the Tamron than the Nikon, especially at the long end. (And the long end of the Tamron is longer....) Nikon 18-200 Tamron 18-250 | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #17 Added: 2007-06-05 23:21:44 | |
| Tamron seem to have the bit between their teeth at the moment. They've produced a number of good lenses in the last year or two. However, if you're not using a camera with CCD-shift, the lack of IS could be off-putting. | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #18 Added: 2007-06-06 03:39:37 | |
| Well, one could buy a Pentax, get in-body IS, and get more for ones buck. ;o) At least that's what I'm suggesting to my sister. If she feels that she really needs 10 megs then she can compare the Nikon 40x vs. Pentax K10D. Nikon might win on size/weight but it's going to cost a lot more for body/superzoom. And top out at 200mm. | ||
| Justin Watson (Justin) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #19 Added: 2007-06-06 14:29:29 | |
| Yes i'm thinking Pentax can make some big moves in the dSLR market. They have issues, but what they offer is very good value for money and great quality too. For most people CCD shift stabilisation is all they really need and often the results are just as good as lens stabilisation. Nothing wrong with Canon or Nikon IMO however its easy to get sales because everyone else has one or the Pros use it. Pentax and Olympus have been the more innovative dSLR makers lately. | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #20 Added: 2007-06-06 23:00:38 | |
| Justin, no offence, but have you seen the EOS 1D3? For a company that's supposedly resting on its laurels it seems quite innovative. In fact the only thing that's not innovative about it is the name, which really doesn't let folk know how much of a new camera it is ;) | ||
| Number Users: 3 Number of Posts: 26 | To Reply Join Jeber Photo Clubs | |
| « Back [1] [2] Next » | ||
