Am I Missing Something? (Lens Question)

PhilGarber · Apr 30, 2009

Hi-

I'm thinking this lens would be more then perfect upgrade to my current 18-55mm kit lens. Price tag aside, what do you think? It says in the BH reviews that it has some lens creep.. what is that? Has anyone here ever used this lens? Tamron | 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Asph. | AFB003C-700

Thanks,

Phil,

Josh66 · Apr 30, 2009

PhilGarber said:
It says in the BH reviews that it has some lens creep.. what is that?

Say you have it set at the wide end, then you see something shiny on the ground. Naturally, you'll want to take a picture of it.

When you point the camera down, the lens will creep to the long end. The weight of the lens will zoom it out (the opposite can happen too, pointing it up).

I don't know at what angle it would start to creep, but it could be pretty annoying in some cases.

Onto the lens - I have no experience with this lens, but typically super-zooms (18-270mm) are not the best lenses. It would be better to cover that range with 2 or 3 lenses.

edit
Instead of upgrading your kit lens, you might be better off keeping it and getting another lens in a focal range not covered by the lens you have already. Something along the lines of a 70-200 would be nice.

PhilGarber · Apr 30, 2009

Hmm.. Thanks O||! Lens creep does sound pretty annoying. I guess I will consider covering the range differently.

dcclark · Apr 30, 2009

Lens creep is effectively unavoidable in big zooms -- that is, if the lens is even slightly heavy and it's a zoom of any amount (not even a superzoom), it WILL creep. My Nikon 18-200 creeps if it's set at anything other than 18mm (but stays put nicely at that length). Some very large lenses actually have built-in switches which hold them at the current focal length, for exactly this reason.

People will tell you that superzooms aren't good, but you need to know your own priorities. For example, I bought my 18-200 exactly because my former 18-55 and 55-200 combo was extremely annoying. For the sort of hiking/climbing/bushwhacking/travelling I do, convenience vastly outweighs minor increases in sharpness. So, for me, the 18-200 is the best choice. It may not be the best choice for you, if you are worried about technical details. However, you'll have to decide that for yourself.

Don't forget that, in the end, you can make great images with ANY lenses... I've even seen great photos taken with BROKEN lenses. It's more about you than it is the equipment.

PhilGarber · May 1, 2009

Thanks Clark! I'll keep that in mind.

bigtwinky · May 1, 2009

I read a review a few months ago (or was it weeks? I need coffee...) and they were pretty impressed with this lens.

However, it still has a big range in focal lenght, so it will usually not be as sharp as something with a lesser focal lenght.

Why do you want to upgrade your kit lens?

Do you like the focal range but not the sharpness? Look at the Tamron/Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 lenses (might be 17-55, 18-55 or whatever,..)

Do you want a longer lens? If so, how long? You can look at Tamron's 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for a slight increase in focal range.

If you want much longer, you are looking at the 70-200 lenses which can get pretty pricey.

You can also look at the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Has great image quality, wide aperture for lower light shooting. Drawback is that its a prime, not a zoom. It was my first upgrade from my kit lens and I loved it (and still do!)

cereal83 · May 1, 2009

Does a lens like a 70-200 2.8 IS creep or is it general the cheaper lens?

Josh66 · May 1, 2009

cereal83 said:
Does a lens like a 70-200 2.8 IS creep or is it general the cheaper lens?

No, it doesn't creep. It dosen't extend while zooming/focusing, so there's nothing to creep down.

Lens creep only happens on lenses that extend while zooming. Lenses like the 70-200 L (all 4 of them) stay the same length throughout the focal range.

EDIT
There may be parts on the inside moving back and forth, but I've never noticed any creep.

The Canon 75-300 though, wow - the zoom and the focus will creep on you.

cereal83 · May 1, 2009

Thanks. I figured that as I have never heard people complain from creep from the 70-200. I better understand it now. Thanks

PhilGarber · May 1, 2009

bigtwinky said:
I read a review a few months ago (or was it weeks? I need coffee...) and they were pretty impressed with this lens.

However, it still has a big range in focal lenght, so it will usually not be as sharp as something with a lesser focal lenght.

Why do you want to upgrade your kit lens?

Do you like the focal range but not the sharpness? Look at the Tamron/Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 lenses (might be 17-55, 18-55 or whatever,..)

Do you want a longer lens? If so, how long? You can look at Tamron's 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for a slight increase in focal range.

If you want much longer, you are looking at the 70-200 lenses which can get pretty pricey.

You can also look at the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Has great image quality, wide aperture for lower light shooting. Drawback is that its a prime, not a zoom. It was my first upgrade from my kit lens and I loved it (and still do!)

I'm interested in photojournalism. So, something that can cover a long range. That's really why I was looking at the 18-270. I'm also seriously considering this: Canon Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS - Lens Review from Experts at Popular Photography- Photo Tips

Garbz · May 1, 2009

O|||||||O said:
No, it doesn't creep. It dosen't extend while zooming/focusing, so there's nothing to creep down..

That isn't entirely true. Just because a lens is internally focused doesn't mean there isn't something to creep. The zooming element still needs to travel back and forth.

The difference has nothing to do with IF or non-IF, in fact most cheap kit lenses like the 18-70 which looks nearly identical in construction to the 18-200 does not creep. Creep is caused by overly heavy front elements, and poor construction not keeping them in place properly. The 70-200 f/2.8 has a much bigger zooming element than the 18-200, the difference is it's held by tight gearing and moves only a few cm. The 18-200 on the other hand has a front element that is responsible for zooming which travels a good 15cm when zooming, and by a 2 stage extending barrel. This is purely poor construction, or rather compromising the usability of the lens in order to achieve the massive reach.

For photojournalism such a superzoom may not be ideal either. Firstly the creep problem, which also leads to very very rough zooming, slow focusing, and small apertures at the telephoto end all make these class of lenses horrid in my opinion (image quality aside). Don't get me wrong they are great travel and holiday snap lenses and one served me well in Vancouver, but I was glad to be home to have my decent lenses again.