about | support
home
 

Search Used

Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
12 94182 Mar 23, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
67% of reviewers $266.00
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
6.58
7.00
6.4
18_200mm

Specifications:
Name: Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF
Image Circle: APS-C
Type: Standard Zoom
Focal Length: 18 - 200mm
35mm Equivalent: 1.5x: 27 - 300mm; 1.6x: 28.8 - 320mm
Max Aperture: f/3.5 - 6.3
Min Aperture: f/22
Diaphragm Blades: 7
Lens Construction: 15 elements in 13 groups, with low dispersion, aspherical and extra reffractive index elements
Diagonal Angle of View: 75 to 7 degrees
Focus Details: Internal focusing system
Front Element Rotation: Yes
Zoom System: Rotating, Telescoping
Closest Focus: 0.45m / 1.48 ft.
Magnification Ratio: 0.27x / 1:3.7
Filter Size: 62mm
Dimensions
(Length x Diameter): 83.7mm x 73.8mm / 3.3 in. x 2.9 in.
Weight: 398g / 14 oz
Notes: Available mounts: Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax. Includes petal type hood.


 


          
lunacat
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 13, 2014
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7
Review Date: Mar 23, 2014 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 1 

 
Pros: None
Cons:
- No durability - Not so good for its price

I did not own this lens but one of my family member did foor less than a year. Indeed, even if the quality was not wonderful, even taking really great care of the gear did not prevent it from the lenses inside to move (it never fell or whatever) and gave a total ly blurry image. Therefore, this person soon after switched to another lens, not from this brand.
Maybe Canon or Nikon are more expensive brands, but at least you know you can keep your lens for a long time. And from a long time, I need more than 1 year for sure!
So sometimes, it's better to pay more at first but to be sure you won't have any problem afterwards. That's why I use Canon lenses on my gear and I've never had such problems: http://www.lunacatstudio.ch/photographe-mariage-vaud-cindy-andrea/


Mar 23, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add lunacat to your Buddy List  
Jase34
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 17, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 81
Review Date: May 1, 2010 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: great walk around lense, wide angle is real nice.
Cons:
sucks in dust quite a bit. low light is horrible for taking photos with this lense. not very clear at long end.

I have owned this lense since 2005 and has been my main lense since then. Till I became more knowledgeable in lense quality and how it affect images I thought the lense was great. Plan on selling it due to how much I actually dislike it. as someone stated earlier on this post the lense is great for the rebel user who is just entering digital SLR photography. I would not recommend this lense to friend.

May 1, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Jase34 to your Buddy List  
Berschwinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 365
Review Date: Apr 14, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Light, small, and flexible zoom range
Cons:
Really slow focusing, poor tele IQ

Purchased new, Nov '06. Used as a single lens kit for 2 years before I knew better.

Good travel lens - one lens fits all. It was a great learning tool, and I got many shots I wouldn't have simply because I had the zoom range to be prepared. As far as image quality, pictures are really soft on the long end, and barrel distortion is significant on the wide end. The lens is really slow to focus and hunts badly in poor light. I've missed many shots waiting for the focus ring to come around. Focus motor is very loud as well. A lot of lens for the price, but there are compromises in all areas.


Apr 14, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Berschwinger to your Buddy List  
UltraVal
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
Review Date: Sep 14, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $100.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, built VERY well, good feel, very nice colors
Cons:
Focusing in low light isn't easy with it but it can then be switched to MF

I feel this lens in under-rated here. All I know is that mine is very sharp, especially stopped down. I bought it mostly as a wide lens for outdoor use in daylight, and for this it's very good.

I do not think Sigma is built better - they are both built like tanks in my opinion.

I've also owned the Sigma 18-50 DC, 18-50 DC EX, and 17-70, all great lenses in my book, and the 18-50 DC is another under-rated lens in my opinion.

I've also owned Tamron 24-135, 28-105, 28-75 XR Di, and 70-300. The 18-200 and the 28-75 seem to be the best Tamrons I've used personally.

Am personally very pleased with it, and especially for $100.


Sep 14, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add UltraVal to your Buddy List  
graemeak
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 30, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 313
Review Date: May 30, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Zoom (18-200mm is great for a 1.6x crop factor sensor), lets you have 1 lens for occasions where you can't or don't want to carry a lot of lenses, very light, price, did I mention its compact?
Cons:
Noisy AF (but what do you expect for the price?), not a fast lens (f6.3? terrible!), not very sharp, no IS.

Even though its build quality isn't good, for the price its a good every day walk about lens. 18-200mm is just a great zoom range!

May 30, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add graemeak to your Buddy List  
KluZz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 10, 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 10, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Price, weight, I guess.
Cons:
Noisy AF, hunts a lot in low light, not too sharp, not very fast, pronounced CA.

I bought this lens before I knew much about lens quality, and while I loved the ability to only use a single lens for all my needs, I was rather disappointed in the results I was getting.

After buying a couple of primes (recommended by a pro), and trying out some more high end Canon lenses, I became aware of why exactly I was unhappy with the pictures.

The lens isn't very sharp compared to, well, anything else I own, and the CA, although easily fixable in post, is quite pronounced (2 pixels) at very short or very long focal lengths.

It's also not very fast, making hand held long range shots next to impossible, and indoor shooting without the aid of a flash is just not going to happen.

After it had been collecting dust for a few months, I eventually sold it.


Jan 10, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add KluZz to your Buddy List  
AlexCheker
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 96
Review Date: Jan 3, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Light, Cheep, Big Range, Compact,
Cons:
noisy AF, Bad low light AF, Croped sensor only

Over all not bad,.. its light, its cheep, it has a big range,.. its an ok mid to low end do everything lens. I paid a lot for it back when it first came out,.. so ill probably sque the average price a bit,..

Its not fast,.. but it does not claim to be,.. if your always working with good light its a good lens,..

It does fall short in low light, AF sometimes gets confused particularly in low light, and its noisy,.. not noisy as in, to loud to work around, but noisy in, that bird just flew off cause my lens made a little more noise than it should have.

So its not great in low light, and its not great for quiet work,.. Other than that it seems to do the job. Produce fairly sharp images all the way from wide to telephoto range without changing lenses,.. Great for just about anything outdoors on a sunny day.

With that said, iv out grown this lens now that I have all L series,.. It certainly does not produce L quality, but even still I think it was an OK lens when I was starting out. And I think its current price is very reasonable for what it does.


Jan 3, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add AlexCheker to your Buddy List  
nquinten
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 11, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 11, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Small, Lightweight, incredible range
Cons:
f6.3, autofocus quite slow, sharpness

I compared this lens with the Sigma 18-200.
A friend of mine had the Sigma. I tested it, autofocus is very noisy as usual at Sigma, and you have the awful "compatibility errors" that strike from time to time. I have had 5 Sigma lenses in the past but will never buy a Sigma anymore. Build quality and compatibility errors have convinced me to go for another brand. Canon whenever possible. Tamron otherwise. Tokina may be right too.
I sold 4 of my Sigma's on ebay, only the 70-200 f2.8 will stay for a while.

The Tamron lens is one I use very often in travel for lightweight and range. It replaces a 1.2kg 70-200 and a 0.6Kg 28-75 2.8 and a 18-55 , hence 400gr instead of 2000gr to carry. And I never have to change the lens !

Anyway, in terms of bokeh "profondeur de champ" and sharpness, the result is not comparable to the heavier lenses. It is quite disappointing if you are a demanding person in terms of sharpness.

I was not expecting much from the AF in dark areas. Compared to Canon EF lenses with USM, this lens is much weaker, but it is ok.

However, I must admit I was a bit disappointed with the sharpness. Usually, I still carry a Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di for shots that require sharpness. The basic Canon 18-55 ii seems also to have much better sharpness in its range.
I think I will try a 17-85is combined with a 70-200 f4/is in the future. This combination is 500gr+700gr, which is comparable in weight, but far better in terms of sharpness and bokeh.

Another weak point of this lens : it is a terrible dust absorber. Such a big lens with external zoom can seriously dust your CMOS/CCD. I had a bad experience in India Rajastan (dusty area). The seals of the Tamron lens are probably weak. A friend with a Nikon 18-200 VR claimed he had no issue in Rajastan.

The range is considered to be +-160-170mm on the Tamron, I did not test myself. The Sigma lens is considered to have a lower range, but better sharpness.

As a conclusion, I like this lens for travel as I care a lot about weight to transport. It is a good lens, good build quality (but beware with dust !) and fantastic range. I think I will keep this lens, but will try another combi for my next travel : 17-85 +70-200 f4 and see what I like the most.


Jun 11, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add nquinten to your Buddy List  
Roy Dale
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 18, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 16, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $150.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Sharpness portability
Cons:
Af a bit slow no IS

I feel I can add a review for this lens ,I find images quite sharp with good colour,it is very useful as a general carry around lens and find it is on my camera most of the time when on holiday etc.

Perhaps I just have got lucky as the images I have taken have been quite sharp.

See

http://www.pbase.com/royd63uk/image/77422853.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/royd63uk/image/76860603.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/royd63uk/image/78314187.jpg


May 16, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Roy Dale to your Buddy List  
Bombino
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 18
Review Date: Mar 6, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: range, weight, better construction quality than sigma counterpart, a bit more reach than the sigma
Cons:
AF, sharpness, zoom ring is too tight, soft at telephoto end

A decent walkaround for the lightweight enthusiast but not good for much else. At f8 it's decent, fairly sharp. AF in low light is an absolute nightmare, even w/ IR assist. Good for the 300D/Rebel crowd if you're pinching pennies, just don't expect a great shots from this glass.

Mar 6, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Bombino to your Buddy List  
byteseller
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1844
Review Date: Mar 5, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Range
Cons:
Sharpness, CA, focusing speed

Did a careful side by side comparison between this lens and the similar Sigma 18-200. I found the Sigma to be better in almost very way - including: sharpness, focusing accuracy and CA. The one positive for the Tamron was that it proved to be a longer lens than the Sigma which had noticibly shorter reach (~180mm).


Mar 5, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add byteseller to your Buddy List  
gtojon
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Dec 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 451
Review Date: Mar 3, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $380.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Love the range. Sold my 17-85 for this lens & cannot complain.
Cons:
Image stabalization would make it a really great lens.



Mar 3, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add gtojon to your Buddy List  

   



Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
12 94182 Mar 23, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
67% of reviewers $266.00
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
6.58
7.00
6.4
18_200mm