Does anyone have a Tamron 18-400 lens..just want to hear about it

[Photo Lady]

Thinking of purchasing this all in one lens.. please let me know what you think of it.. i have been using the 18-270mm all in one for everyday photos for work.. works well for me.. but i would like to upgrade if it is a great improvement...thanks

 

[Cortian]

@Medusa has it on her Canon 20D. I don't know as much can be said, from personal experience, yet, being as she's even more a newbie than I and she's yet to have used it much.

I know it gets generally good reviews. I know she spent an evening reading up on it and was convinced.

Mind you: One of her primary goals was a lens that would be good for our backyard wildlife without going all the way to something like the Tamron 150-600mm at over $1k.

I looked through it after putting a filter on it and putting it on her camera. The 400mm "reach" is nice. Conversely: It is a somewhat large/heavy lens for "walking about," IMO. There ain't no free lunches

So I think it'll come down to what it is for which you want the lens.

 

[goooner]

Read some great reviews, but I'm using the Tammy 150-600, so I have the reach. @Cortain, in general I will suggest removing any 'filter' put on for protective purposes. More often than not, it compromises quality. If you need a polarizer, or gradient filter its a different story however, but the good ones are expensive.

 

[Photo Lady]

@Medusa has it on her Canon 20D. I don't know as much can be said, from personal experience, yet, being as she's even more a newbie than I and she's yet to have used it much.

I know it gets generally good reviews. I know she spent an evening reading up on it and was convinced.

Mind you: One of her primary goals was a lens that would be good for our backyard wildlife without going all the way to something like the Tamron 150-600mm at over $1k.

I looked through it after putting a filter on it and putting it on her camera. The 400mm "reach" is nice. Conversely: It is a somewhat large/heavy lens for "walking about," IMO. There ain't no free lunches

So I think it'll come down to what it is for which you want the lens.

thank you ..well said and understood... now what about the photos itself..better ...

 

[Photo Lady]

Read some great reviews, but I'm using the Tammy 150-600, so I have the reach. @Cortain, in general I will suggest removing any 'filter' put on for protective purposes. More often than not, it compromises quality. If you need a polarizer, or gradient filter its a different story however, but the good ones are expensive.

thanks very much.. i just want better photos then the tamron 18-270 MM all in one i use daily.. it is a big upgrade this way?

 

[Cortian]

thank you ..well said and understood... now what about the photos itself..better ...

You're welcome and thank you.

Can't really say as to "better" or not, as she's had no other lens on that body and I took no comparable photos with it before I upgraded to the 40D.

We've both taken similar photos, since then, but there are still no apples:apples comparisons to be made. I've more time on the Canon x0D cameras and the lighting was vastly different.

... i just want better photos then the tamron 18-270 MM all in one i use daily..

Define "better"

Without going to the trouble of looking up reviews of the lens you have I'm going to guess they're about on par, quality-wise. So the 18-400 will get you closer, but it will not magically make your photos better.

There are no equipment magic bullets for photo quality.

 

[Photo Lady]

thank you.. i appreciate your reply...

 

[KmH]

Superzoom lenses (10x or more focal length range) can only exist because the lens designers have computers that can, at least partly, mitigate the many, many optical aberration design compromises that have to be made to design a superzoom lens.
Consequently, all superzoom lenses have a variety of optical aberrations that the photographer has to live with, mostly in the form of soft focus, distortions, and chromatic aberration within certain focal length ranges the lens is capable of being set to.
Such is the cost of the convenience a lens that has a 10x+ zoom range.

Unfortunately DPReview has not yet tested that lens.

 

[ac12]

The Tamron 18-400 is a 22x zoom. (400/18=22)
"Super zooms" are sold for convenience, not image quality.
The phrase "jack of all trades, master of none," would apply to a super zoom.
In general, a super zoom will have a lower image quality than a shorter zoom. It is the design compromises needed to make a zoom with that much range coverage. So, I would say that it would be worse than your 18-270, which itself is a 15x super zoom.

And as Cortian said, weight and bulk increase. So it becomes more of a hassle to carry around as a standard lens.
But for going on vacation, it will reach out to where other lenses don't.
Example my 18-140 is significantly heavier and bulkier than my 18-70. And I would imagine the 18-400 would be even heavier and bulkier than your 18-270.
Look up the weight specs for that lens, and compare to your 18-270.

Personally, I would stick to your 18-270, and forget the 18-400.

 

[Cortian]

Example my 18-140 is significantly heavier and bulkier than my 18-70.

Interestingly enough: The Canon 18-135 is barely larger than the 17-85, and actually weighs slightly less.

 

[ac12]

Example my 18-140 is significantly heavier and bulkier than my 18-70.

Interestingly enough: The Canon 18-135 is barely larger than the 17-85, and actually weighs slightly less.

My 18-70 is a variable aperture kit lens that came with my D70, not a f/2.8 lens.

 

[ac12]

I just checked the specs
18-270 = 500g
18-400 = 705g
The 18-400 is a 40% weight increase over your current 18-270.

 

[jaomul]

I think your money would be better spent elsewhere than using an 18-400 on that d7500 you bought. Maybe 2 lenses that cover the range and a food carrying system that makes them easy to use

 

[ac12]

If you simply want the reach, for example to shoot birds, I would get a long tele zoom, rather than a super zoom.
There are less optical compromises, and better image quality.
Example, the Tamron 100-400 or 150-600.
However the 150-600 is a bigger and significantly heavier lens, and you will very likely need a decent tripod for it.

Comparisons:
The Tamron 18-400 weighs 705g, $650 on Amazon.
The Tamron 100-400 weighs 1115g, $800 on Amazon.
The Tamron 150-600 weighs 1980g, $880 on Amazon.

 

[Photo Lady]

thanks everyone for this great info.. i think i will stay with this lens for every day.. and get a zoom lens that just zooms..