Nikon D90 and Tamron 18-270

[basser]

Has anyone used the Tamron 18-270 lens with the D90? Some literature says the D90 is "full frame" and I was told the 18-270 is not compatible with a full frame digital.

 

[benhasajeep]

D90 is a crop sensor. 1.5x

I am interested in the lens, for a travel lens. Have not seen any hands on reports from anyone yet.

 

[epp_b]

I don't what you read, but the D90 is not a full frame / FX / 35mm frame camera. It is an APS-C 1.5x cropped frame. The 18-270 will cover the whole sensor just fine.

 

[anubis404]

The D90 is not full format. You're getting it confused with the D700.

The 18-270 looks interesting although any lens with that kind of zoom range I don't trust.

 

[basser]

Thanks to all. I think I'll get the 18-270 and see how it works. Will let you know what I think.

 

[AlexColeman]

Don't get the lens, it is awful quality with horrendous optics. Get a good zoom like the 16-85, it is phenomenal.

 

[TwoRails]

Don't get the lens, it is awful quality with horrendous optics. Get a good zoom like the 16-85, it is phenomenal.

Just curious, but where did you get that info? A recent Popular Photography review states IQ is pretty decent.

 

[JerryPH]

If you do a google, your answers will be there. It is a very mediocre lens... but then again most super zooms are at best compromise lenses.

This lens suffers from:
- lost image quality at the wide-angle and telephoto settings.
- At 18 mm the image has a softening in the lower-left corner.
- suffers from some chromatic aberration
- not a fixed aperture lens

...and other things.

Google is your friend... or on this case, your enemy... lol

 

[TwoRails]

Actually, I did Google after reading the review in Pop Photo but most of what was posted was press release regurgitation. I did find a proverbial ton of other photo site posts talking about the lens. Seems the Canon users of the lens like it and the Nikon version is reported as buggy. Don't know why a mount would make a difference...

 

[JerryPH]

It doesn't normally... some just have different expectations or don't get too aggressive with their tests.

Logic dictates that a superzoom will NEVER have the same quality as a zoom or even less than a prime. Doesn't make it a bad lens... just not a very good one on the overall scale of things.

 

[passerby]

Thanks to all. I think I'll get the 18-270 and see how it works. Will let you know what I think.

Good on you mate. Please post us few pictures from the widest side to the longest side and everything in between. I am so anxious to see.

 

[AlexColeman]

If you do a google, your answers will be there. It is a very mediocre lens... but then again most super zooms are at best compromise lenses.

This lens suffers from:
- lost image quality at the wide-angle and telephoto settings.
- At 18 mm the image has a softening in the lower-left corner.
- suffers from some chromatic aberration
- not a fixed aperture lens

...and other things.

Google is your friend... or on this case, your enemy... lol

Just a bad lens, what do you expect from something that covers that zoom range? When it is replete with distortion CA and softness, why would you get it?

 

[basser]

Thanks all, but now I'm concerned. I was looking for a lens that could cover a range that wouldn't require me to carry two lens or a camera bag on short trips. Figured this one would fit the bill.

 

[epp_b]

A recent Popular Photography review states IQ is pretty decent.

What, you think they're going to bite the hand that feeds them?

Thanks all, but now I'm concerned. I was looking for a lens that could cover a range that wouldn't require me to carry two lens or a camera bag on short trips. Figured this one would fit the bill.

You, my friend, are looking for a lens using Magic (TM) technology

When you buy a lens for the convenience of a massive focal range, you are going to make sacrifices in other areas. From what I've read, the Nikon 18-200, while more expensive, is probably the best compromise in terms of convenience and image quality. I have the 18-55 and 55-200. Together, they cover pretty much all the range I'll ever need. If you need to get closer, then get closer. The difference between 200 and 270 is only 36%.

 

[passerby]

Thanks all, but now I'm concerned. I was looking for a lens that could cover a range that wouldn't require me to carry two lens or a camera bag on short trips. Figured this one would fit the bill.

Ask the vendor if they allow you to return the lens if you find it not satisfactory to your criteria. If yes than do handhold outdoor test quickly using 18mm to start with than 28 than 50 than 70 etc until 270, and shooting the same subject. In that test you use 2 aperture settings per shot. The widest opening and the f8 or f11. Than you scrutinized those pictures in your computer.

Regardless of what we all have said here, you will decide if the lens is for you. But if you don't want to go through that way than the Nikon 18-200 is proven as decent lens.