|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
4
|
127221
|
4/26/2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
75% of reviewers
|
$723.50
|
|
| Reader Review Rating Averages |
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
|
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
|
Readers'
Overall Rating
|
|
7.25
|
8.00
|
6.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mhudon
Registered: April 2011
Posts: 1
|
|
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF review by Mhudon
|
|
Review Date: 4/26/2011
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $723.00| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, fast autofocus, good stabilization
|
|
Cons:
|
Dust got in between the two first glass elements at the back of the lens after 8 weeks
|
|
The many reviews I have read about this lens tend to be a little harsh. It's far from perfect, but it gives you an incredible reach in a very small and light format.
Autofocus is fast, color rendition and general image quality is predictable. If you don't want to have to fix distortion in post-prod, keep clear from all the lens in the 18-200+mm group!
|
|
maskinmoller
Registered: March 2011
Posts: 6
|
|
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF review by maskinmoller
|
|
Review Date: 3/16/2011
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Total Spent: $838.00| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
size, tele coverage, sharpness at all FL, autofocus, VC works
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy VC!, build quality, rotating focus ring during AF, 270 mm doesn' fell like 270 mm
|
|
I've had the Nikkor 18-200 mm VR before to compare with. I purchased this as the old version was told to be a bit sharper than the Nikkor, but with a very slow AF, which I'd not accept.
This version surely has a better AF, though not quite as fast ad the Nikkor yet. It also has an effective VC, BUT it makes an annoying whining noise! I don't do videos, but for people with this interest, I guess the VC would have to be off. Even just using it for stills, the noise just got on my nerves. Not even the cheapest Nikkor VR lenses make that kind of noise.
And speaking of cheap. The build quality just isn't a match for the Nikkor 18-200 and I wouldn't trust this lens to last many years, which it should at the price point it sells.
Sad, since the IQ definitely is on top compared with other superzooms.
I've read other comment on the 270 mm isn't truly 270 mm and I got the same feeling that it breathes a lot, so I didn't really fell it being much longer than the 18-200 mm Nikkor.
At 18 mm it has very pronounced field curvation, so don't try to shoot straight lines..
If I was to rate it for shaprness alone, I'd recommend it, but it just has to many other small issues for me.
|
|
photojay
Registered: February 2011
Posts: 1
|
|
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF review by photojay
|
|
Review Date: 2/13/2011
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $649.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very fast focus, excellent sharpness, light weight and not a huge lens
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Remarkable considering it's range and what it was designed to do
|
|
horushin
Registered: February 2011
Posts: 1
|
|
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF review by horushin
|
|
Review Date: 2/9/2011
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $684.00| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, good image quality, light, well put together
|
|
Cons:
|
VC and VC during Continous Auto focus
|
|
Image quality seems fine. Even at 270mm it seems outstanding. The VC is a big problem. I have asked Tech support to help. Lets see where that goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
