anyone tried the tamron 18-270 VC?

[jann1033]

kind of vaguely considering a longer tele with IS/Vc for shaky hand days. like the tamron warranty and if i'm going to get a longer zoom with IS might as well get a walkaround one but it's $600 vs the canon 50-250 IS so twice the price. reviews for the canon seem better so probably that one is the way to go but wondered if anyone here has first hand experience with the tamron
thanks

 

[Icemann]

I shoot with a Nikon and have that lens.It has worked out good for me so far,I use it as my walkaround lens.Mine will focus fast,it's quiet and it appears to be very sharp.So far so good.But I'm a newbie and still learning.I like to use it for wildlife shots and I have some pretty good shots of some owls and gators.Just used it this past weekend to take some pictures of some flowers and butterflys.Good Luck

 

[REL1203]

I have used ths lens. Its Nice, the VC works GREAT, the range is graet, but the lens has flaws. Its Slow, its f/6.3 at like 120mm and up, so if you dont have good light, its not gonna do well using zoom. It also suffers from major zoom creep (the weight of the lens its self causeing the lens to extended if hend down). The range is FANTASTIC though. If you are hard pressed for a walk around lens, this is a decent one, but if all you care about is the tele-photo end, get the canon 55-250. Its IS is just as good, its faster, and sharper, plus way cheaper, i think amazon had it for $230 today

 

[disneyboy2003]

I don't have any personal experience with this lens. However, if you want to compare the Tamron 18-270mm lens to a Canon lens, here are a couple choices:

Canon 18-200mm lens is the one that is the most equivalent. Consider this lens if you need a single walk-around lens, such as a nice travel lens without the hassles of switching lenses on vacation.

Canon 70-300mm lens has an equivalent maximum focal length, and a larger aperture at the 300mm end. Sounds like you were looking specifically for a longer telephoto lens, and not necessarily an all-purpose walk-around lens.

Just some thoughts.


BTW, this post is my 100th post! Yay!

 

[mom2rtk]

I guess it depends on your personal preferences. It drives me NUTS to have a long lens on the camera, like at a soccer game, then want to take some pics of my daughter sitting next to me in the stands and need to change lenses or miss the shot.

I bought this lens for my Canon this fall for the same reason as you. My hands are pretty shaky sometimes, so I sold my 18-250 without VC and upgraded to this one. I really enjoyed the long reach it offered from the stands at my son's high school soccer games. This was taken from half way up the stands at my son's game which was played on the football field. I have cropped it down a bit, but the shot was nice and clear:

It does seem heavier than my 18-250 was, but I dont' know if that's the extra focal length or the VC.....

 

[jann1033]

i have the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and canon 70-200 f4 so don't really care that much about the aperture since i love them both and use them usually. the canon isn't IS and when my hands are shaky it's to heavy for me to not use a monopod, which isn't always possible. right now i just look for something to lean against but that 's not always possible( or it never fails someone hits the object i am using right as i press the shutter ) so i was thinking maybe the is would be enough. but if the tamron is heavy-ish already it might be just as bad as the canon by the time i take in to account the worse f stop. i am more looking for a cheap( since it's not for heavy useage) but sharp and light alternative to the canon which was my original thought for the 55-250. my present tamron is light enough i don't have a problem usually but with the canon i am shoving it into my forehead so hard to steady it i think i 'm getting a permanent dent

 

[mom2rtk]

OK, so maybe this is just crazy.... but I fell like a "heavy-ish" lens actually helps to steady my hands.... does that make sense????

You really need to find one in a store you can pick up and try out. I also think there are versions with a long range, but not AS long as teh 18-270. Maybe one of those would be lighter?

 

[disneyboy2003]

i have the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and canon 70-200 f4 so don't really care that much about the aperture since i love them both and use them usually. the canon isn't IS and when my hands are shaky it's to heavy for me to not use a monopod, which isn't always possible. right now i just look for something to lean against but that 's not always possible( or it never fails someone hits the object i am using right as i press the shutter ) so i was thinking maybe the is would be enough. but if the tamron is heavy-ish already it might be just as bad as the canon by the time i take in to account the worse f stop. i am more looking for a cheap( since it's not for heavy useage) but sharp and light alternative to the canon which was my original thought for the 55-250. my present tamron is light enough i don't have a problem usually but with the canon i am shoving it into my forehead so hard to steady it i think i 'm getting a permanent dent

Sounds like that Canon 70-200mm f/4 lens is a great lens, but without image stabilization, it's really tough to take non-shaky pictures. That's probably true of any lens with a long focal length.

On a side note...I take my 70-200mm lens on Kilimanjaro Safaris at Animal Kingdom, and you know how extremely bumpy those vehicles are. It's really tough to get a steady shot of those animals at 200mm while bouncing like a Weeble Wobble. In these situations, "image stabilization" has zero help.

Instead, what I do is keep the lens at its maximum aperture, use a higher ISO (400?), and use a really really fast shutter speed (like 1/1000 - 1/2000). That way, my camera can shake all it wants, but as soon as I click the shutter, I'll have a sharp, non-blurry picture because of the fast shutter speed.