 |
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Berschwinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 455
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Roy Dale
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
|
May 16, 2007
|
|
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
|
|
byteseller
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2421
|
|
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
|
|
gtojon
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 511
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
12
|
109077
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
