Super-zoom lenses

[Ireland]

How good / bad are they as a walk-around lense?

I'm thinking something like this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-As...

as a lens thats just left on the camera every day.

Are they worth it for that purpose or are they more likely to end up on ebay in a month?

[K12beano]

Only you can really answer that.

Depends upon your output and expectations.

Perhaps you should buy from Fleabay and then re-sell if not impressed? Or find a mate to borrow from.

Personally, once you've tasted good glass it's difficult to go back!


Regards
"Optisnob"

[Xaero]

I had the Tamron 18-270mm when I was travelling (constant backpacking, not day trips) in order to keep my kit size down. It was fine for what it is. It's never going to take the sharpest photos, but that's not the point of the lens.

It's a personal decision but that's what I thought was the best for travel at the time. I've got a smaller camera and lenses now so have the quality, flexibility and weight advantage and wouldn't go back to the 18-270mm on a dSLR anymore.

[MysteryLemon]

As you can imagine, they are a compromise over 2 or even 3 lenses covering the same zoom range. Will still be perfectly ok as a general use lens though.

I have an 18-135mm which whilst isn't quite the same thing, has a fair old Zoom on it (200mm equivelant) and is my general purpose lens. It does that very well indeed. My 35mm prime is sharper but then it would be

[AndrewEH1]

No familiar with that Tamron but used the kit lens, 18-200mm, that came with my Canon 50D for about 6-8 months before I felt I needed a better/different lens for daily use.

Stayed on the camera all the time, took it to the desert in Egypt. In terms of quality it wasn't as good as two seperate lenses but it did the job well and saved carting about two lenses.

I guess a good question is what len/lenses do you currently have?

Edited by AndrewEH1 on Friday 23 November 10:29

[DibblyDobbler]

I've the Tamron 18-270 PZD and if you can stop it down a touch it's reasonably sharp. It's not going to produce L lens quality but I guess you would realise that

Pros: massive range, compact, light, affordable, stabilisation
Cons: image quality good but not great, needs a stop to help sharpness

I can post up some sample shots if you like ?

[ChipsAndCheese]

I have an older version of that lens, and it is decent enough. Images can be a bit soft, usually at full zoom, but I find that for most of the range it is fine and produces good quality images. It is the ideal lens for when you know it is going to be inconvenient to change lenses.

Some example shots of the lens on my D5100:

Hungry Cow by Chips And Cheese, on Flickr


Daisies by Chips And Cheese, on Flickr

I also tag my Flickr pictures with the lens I used so all these shots were taken with the Tamron 18-270:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76766156@N06/tags/tam...

[_rubinho_]

I have the newer PZD version of this lens on my Nikon. I use it in preference to separate lenses as I travel a lot and use the camera in dirty environments so I don't need to be carrying a bagful of glass and changing lenses in a sandpit!

It's good enough for my purposes as by my own admission I am not a great photographer.

I agree with the pros and cons above and will add one more con: I take a lot of structures, buildings and signs, stuff with straight edges. On these the distortion does bug me but I have found it manageable with software correction. I knew of this compromise before I bought the lens and it's no worse than I was expecting.

I'm interested in the new Nikon 18-300 lens and see if this is better on the distortion front. However it is significantly more expensive, longer and heavier than the Tamron so might not meet my other needs so well.

[andy-xr]

I slated them for ages, then bought the Nikkor 28-300 and never took it off my camera

[Simpo Two]

andy-xr said:

I slated them for ages, then bought the Nikkor 28-300 and never took it off my camera

Ken Rockwell likes it too!

www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm







Do you want to change your mind?

[andy-xr]

Ah, st

[checkmate91]

He likes other stuff as well you know...

[andy-xr]

Ah, good



I like it independently of Uncle Ken, it's a nice lens and changed my mind about them. I'm sure there's a mix though like with anything.

[K12beano]

andy-xr said:

...Uncle Ken...

Don't.









Just...... .......don't!

[Simpo Two]

K12beano said:

Just...... .......don't!

Unfortunately for you he likes the D800 as well

'The D800 is the best DSLR ever made by anyone at any price'.



But he likes almost everything, so sooner or later you'll agree by coincidence!

NB If you type 'Ken' into Google he's the second suggestion... ulp.

[PJ S]

Can I get in on the "in-joke" please?
Who's KR?
What's his modus operandi?
What's his relevance or experience to qualify his opinions?

Loves his Leica glass too.

[K12beano]

PJ S said:

Can I get in on the "in-joke" please?
Who's KR?
What's his modus operandi?
What's his relevance or experience to qualify his opinions?

Loves his Leica glass too.

Ren Kockwell, makes Chuck Norris look human, none.

And in a google for "Ken" I get him in third place (rightly behind a plastic doll)

[Golaboots]

I've got a nikon 18-200 lens and its fine on my 10mp Dslr.
General advice seems to be that they're ok but not great once you get to 16mp or so. Can't speak for the Tamron but Tamron and Sigma are generally not as good as Oem non kit lenses.