A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

Choosing a Mobile Photo Printer Read More

Choosing a Mobile Photo Printer

In today's mobile, digital world, we carry hundreds or even thousands of pictures around on our smartphones and tablets. Tom Persinger looks at 4 different mobile photo printer options for getting...

Latest Learning Articles

Advanced Printing with Lightroom (Video Tutorial) Read More

Advanced Printing with Lightroom (Video Tutorial)

Building upon last week's Basic Printing with Lightroom video tutorial, this advanced printing tutorial will teach you to print contact sheets, print multiple images at a time, use Lightroom's present...


Tamron 18-270mm on D300S

deutsh nehmman , Jun 29, 2012; 06:06 a.m.

what are you think about tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 for D300s

Responses

Wouter Willemse , Jun 29, 2012; 06:28 a.m.

Do you have other lenses too? If not, why spend quite a lot of money on the D300s to next give it a lens that will eliminate nearly all advantages the D300s has (over cheaper models)? You'd be better off spending less on the body, and more on the lenses. These superzooms are optically not great - they're convenient, and that's it.

Richard Thomas , Jun 29, 2012; 07:28 a.m.

May I add to Wouter's response that f/6.3 is extremely slow. You need a LOT of light.

Mihai Ciuca , Jun 29, 2012; 07:47 a.m.

I used for a while this combo ( non PZD version of the zoom and D300). For travel and dirty conditions when you do not want to change lenses is a perfect workable combo. The IQ of the lens is good enough, I personally liked this lens more than 18-200 VR from Nikon. In good light there are not AF issues... but when light is not enough you may have a lot of hunting.
My biggest disappointment was when I upgraded to D7000. The AF was hunting a lot in good light from 100mm to 270mm making the lens unusable.

Mike Gammill , Jun 29, 2012; 08:41 a.m.

Too slow, although optically probably not bad if stopped down and not used at extremes of focal length. If you really feel the need for one, wait for a used on. Many "superzooms" get traded or sold after the novelty has worn off or the user desires higher optical quality and more speed. I actually had an earlier one (an 18-135) that could match the kit lens from 18-55, but fell way short of what my primes could deliver. Sold it and never looked back.

Andrew Garrard , Jun 29, 2012; 09:16 a.m.

Photozone.de have a review of both versions of this lens, if that's of any use. I've not used one, but the test results are ugly.

Mark Drutz , Jun 29, 2012; 11:31 a.m.

If you don't print larger than 8x10 or crop heavily both Tamron 18-270's will probably be sharp enough. otherwise you may find them to be a little soft at their long end.

Sharpness can be measured objectively, but what is sharp enough is subjective. The only way to know if it is sharp enough is to buy one from a store like B&H or Adorama that have a good return policy, and test it for yourself. Another superzoom worth considering is the brand new Sigma 18-200 II OS HSM. I bought one recently and it's the only superzoom that I've tried that is virtually as sharp as my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Nikon 70-300 VR or 55-300 VR.

Steve J Murray , Jun 30, 2012; 10:50 p.m.

I had a Tamron 28-300 lens for a while. It was very sharp and useful up to about 100mm, but it had other problems. Beyond about 100 mm the out of focus areas were real harsh and ugly. It was also slow, like the lens you mention. I felt it was for me really a slow 28-100mm lens. I ultimately sold it, and went back to using my standard Nikkor fixed focus lenses for the most part. The only zoom I use now is the Nikkor 18-70 kit lens, which is still a very good and useful lens for general purpose. I really don't have any need for much telephoto though. I shoot with DX format.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses