Tamron 18-200 lens. VR or no VR?

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

Hi- I'm looking to buy a allpurpose lens for my nikon d3000. So I decided upon the Tamron series.

I'm confused between the 18-270 VC (their equivalent of VR) and the 18-200 with no VC.

the difference is about 200$.

I don't do a lot of low light photography.

BUT, when I'm sight seeing, I like to take zoomed in photographs. How important would VR be when I'm zooming at 200mm?

Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.

usayit · Nov 1, 2011

Get the 18-270mm Not because it has VC because there were improvements over the 18-200mm and the 18-250mm that was replaced. A more difficult decision would between the 18-270mm and 18-250mm (new old stock) w/ a discontinue discount.

PS> The Sony 18-250mm and Pentax 18-250mm are rebadged Tamron 18-250s.

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

what kind of improvements? enough to warrant an extra 200$?? I'm not a professional anything. so I don't want to spend money for features that i won't be using.

MLeeK · Nov 1, 2011

The features you won't be using are improved sharpness and color rendering. If you want clean, clear, sharp photos-go for the extra buck. If you aren't so picky about image quality? then go for the saved buck.

shootermcgavin · Nov 1, 2011

I have the 18-270 it's a pretty nice lens, not very good for low light photography though. My only complaint about it is the zoom mechanism is a little loose and if it's say at 50mm and you are walking around it will slide out to 270mm. You will feel a loose spot while zooming with the lens Tamron seem to do this through out their lenses. Sigma has a much smoother zoom but doesn't have as wide a range.

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

shootermcgavin said:
I have the 18-270 it's a pretty nice lens, not very good for low light photography though. My only complaint about it is the zoom mechanism is a little loose and if it's say at 50mm and you are walking around it will slide out to 270mm. You will feel a loose spot while zooming with the lens Tamron seem to do this through out their lenses. Sigma has a much smoother zoom but doesn't have as wide a range.

yes, that lens creep is something that would definitely piss me off. the 18-200 apparently has a "zoom lock" mechanism.

you have the one with VC right? in what ways is it lacking for low-light photography?

usayit · Nov 1, 2011

I believe the 18-270mm has zoom lock as well.. I'm pretty sure of it as with the 18-250mm. The 18-200mm had known issues at the farther ends of the zoom in terms of sharpness. The newer versions of the lens improves a bit on IQ and sharpness at the farther end. The 18-200mm is often seen as a "kit" lens of sorts for those shops assembling their own box'd deals. When it was first released, it was priced similarly to the 18-270 and 18-250 but have long since been offered as a low-cost alternative.

All these lenses have relatively slow max apertures which can be an obstacle for low-light photography.

btw.. here's one place that has several of these Tamron super zooms reviewed

http://www.photozone.de/reviews

Tamron a while back was the company to consider if you needed a super zoom of wide range....

As for your question about image stabilization, there are so many variables involved. How steady are you with the camera? How much light is there at any particular situation for a fast shutter speed? IS (or whatever it is called) is not a silver bullet but every little bit helps. Personally, I'd have a hard time shooting handheld at 200mm @ f/5.6+ unless there was lots of light.

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

well, if i'm doing anything in low-light then it's usually with a tripod. so that takes care of that.

my 2 major worries are 1. quality of the photographs at the either end of the spectrum 18 or 200 (or 270)
2. actual necessity of VC if 95% of my photographs are taken in daylight.

Now how low is low-light? Is a sunset low light? or are we talking lower?
I'm sorry if my questions seem stupid. I'm learning. But I'm having a tough time finding answers to some of my more "stupid" questions.

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

usayit said:
I believe the 18-270mm has zoom lock as well.. I'm pretty sure of it as with the 18-250mm. .

I'm looked at the technical details on bhphotovideo and amazon. No mention of zoom lock.

on the other hand- the 18-200 has explicit mention of a zoom lock.

So how big a deal is the zoom lock? I have a 70-200 Nikkor. And i Have never experienced lens creep. And it doesn't have a zoom lock either.
Is it a problem with tamron lenses?

shootermcgavin · Nov 1, 2011

Zoom lock on 18-270 is at 18 otherwise there is no lock that I know of. It's not great for low light photography because it starts at f3.5 and goes to 6.3, I try to stay under 2.8 if the lighting is not ideal.

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

the.j129 said:
usayit said:

I believe the 18-270mm has zoom lock as well.. I'm pretty sure of it as with the 18-250mm. .

Click to expand...

So how big a deal is the zoom lock? I have a 70-200 Nikkor. And i Have never experienced lens creep. And it doesn't have a zoom lock either.

oops! meant to write 55-200.

That's rich. Don't know when I'd be able to own a 70-200.

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

shootermcgavin said:
Zoom lock on 18-270 is at 18 otherwise there is no lock that I know of. It's not great for low light photography because it starts at f3.5 and goes to 6.3, I try to stay under 2.8 if the lighting is not ideal.

I just found it strange that both website made it a point to mention the zoom lock feature on the 18-200 but didn't mention it for the 18-270.

But if you say it does- then that's good.

so I'm assuming that you have the 18-270 VC?

these are my main queries-
1. quality of the photographs at the either end of the spectrum 18 or 200 (or 270)
2. actual necessity of VC if 95% of my photographs are taken in daylight.
3. how big a deal is the zoom lock feature? if i were to aim at something pointing down, would the lens just come out on its own??

shootermcgavin · Nov 1, 2011

You will feel it right away, throw a tamron on and then throw on a sigma... to me they are equal I just prefer the sigma the way the zoom feels is smoother where Tamron is real solid then loose then solid again... You might like the Tamron better though throw it on the camera and check it out.

MLeeK · Nov 1, 2011

What is your max budget for this purchase?
VC matters if you will be shooting with a shutter speed that is under about 1/400 on that lens. It's very handy to have if it's an all around lens you will be using for everything. It is NOT necessary. There was amazing photography long before there was VR/VC/IS/OS.

If you are wishing you had a 70-200 f/2.8 and are already at the $650 budget, save a month or so and go with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html

the.j129 · Nov 1, 2011

MLeeK said:
What is your max budget for this purchase?
VC matters if you will be shooting with a shutter speed that is under about 1/400 on that lens. It's very handy to have if it's an all around lens you will be using for everything. It is NOT necessary. There was amazing photography long before there was VR/VC/IS/OS.

If you are wishing you had a 70-200 f/2.8 and are already at the $650 budget, save a month or so and go with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
AF001N700 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Mount - USA Warranty

actually. bhphotovideo is selling the 18-270 VC for 400$. and the 18-200 (non VC) for 220$.

Soooo, I'm undecided. I have the 400$. but I'd rather not spend the extra 180$ if it's for a feature that i won't be using.
But since I'm sure that there will be times when i will go well below 1\400, I guess I'll get the VC then.

How's the quality at the 270 end?