tamron AF18-200mm ƒ/3.5-6.3 XR Di II

[jann1033]

anyone know anything about this as far as image quality goes? it was an editor pick in pc photo mag but i can't find any reviews.looked in most of the usual places so might need first hand info

 

[tinksdad]

SLR Gear had a review. Check it out here.

 

[jann1033]

thanks...it looks like it might be one of those good cause it's cheap ones i am trying to steer clear of

 

[0bli0]

i don't think i'd want an 11x zoom as a walk-around - especially one that goes to 6.3 @ 200mm!

 

[boBQuincy]

I do not know how Tamron gets around the specifications, but most Canon dSLRs are not expected to autofocus when the maximum aperture is smaller than f/5.6. Covering up one of the lens contacts is supposed to disable this limitation but in that case I would expect the autofocus to be erratic.

 

[jann1033]

good to know, i did wonder how useful the 200 would be but one of 2 reviews i eventually found( the one posted and one at cameralab(?)) recommended as a "good since it's cheap"... but the samples looked lousy to me. i think i might as well just resign myself to only getting a bargain if it's a used but $$ new lens a little old lady( like me ) only used on Sundays to take a photo of her pot roast

 

[gruZ]

Jann, I've had that exact lens for about 18 months and use it on my 20D from time to time. While the zoom range is obviously very good, I would rate the IQ as OK to pretty good. I've never had a problem with the AF working, although it does hunt around some, especially in lower light.

Truth be told, I purchased it before I knew any better, and was impressed only by the focal length flexibility. That being said, I still will use it as a walkaround lens if I only want to / can carry one lens - am not sure what focal lengths I will need - and when I'm confident there will be plenty of light.

Considering what I paid for it, all in all I've been pretty satisfied with it for what it is supposed to do.

 

[tinksdad]

All great points!! So far, I've stayed with Nikon lenses for my Nikon camera. I REALLY want the 17-55mm f/2.8 that they have. The problem is the darn thing is $1200 dollars. Sigma has a lens that is rated pretty good and 1/3 the price with basically the same focal length. But that makes me slightly nervous! Will it work as well? Will it last as long? Will I have buyers remorse?

All considered, I'm waiting and saving up for the lens I WANT!!

 

[Master Mason]

All considered, I'm waiting and saving up for the lens I WANT!!

I have found at least for me, if I really want the more expensive one, but settle for the cheaper, 99.9% of the time I end up buying the more expensive one anyway, so then I ulimately spent even more than I had to, because I bought the cheaper one first....

 

[alan]

Wot 'e said.

I don't know about the Tamron; I bought the Sigma equivalent. It put me off the SLR for months. I hated the camera, but the fault was with the lens.

I know that because I borrowed a colleague's L lens.

That was probably a really bad move...

regards,
/alan

 

[0bli0]

I have found at least for me, if I really want the more expensive one, but settle for the cheaper, 99.9% of the time I end up buying the more expensive one anyway, so then I ulimately spent even more than I had to, because I bought the cheaper one first....

this is so true - so many people do this (human nature, i guess). in the past i have done this, but now knowing what i know i'll be patient for the lens/printer/bag/etc. that i wish i had, foregoing any substitute/cheaper version.