Stabilized SuperZoom Test Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Stabilized SuperZoom Test

Nov 7 2008

***PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE LETTER DESIGNATIONS AS YOU VIEW THE TESTS***
A = Canon 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS
B = Canon 18-200 F3.5-5.6 IS
C = Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 OS
D = Tamron 18-270 F3.5-6.3 VC
E = Canon 55-250 F4-5.6 IS
[Canon 40D body used for testing]

For FOCAL LENGTH/APERTURE COMPARISON see http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/isosvclenses
For RESOLUTION comments see http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/isosvctests
For EXPANDED COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS see http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/105509533/original

Here is the rest of my SUMMARY-ANALYSIS between these superzooms:
AF (Noise): C noisiest, B/D less noisy and comparable
AF (Speed): B twice as fast as C/D
AF (LowLight): B quickest to achieve focus, though C/D do lock on
Barrel Distortion: B worst of the bunch, C/D better and comparable
Bokeh: D best, then B, then C (only slightly behind B)
Build: All solid and good consumer-grade quality
CA: All comparable and slightly below average
Contrast: B/D best with C trailing slightly behind
Flare: B best with the others acceptable (and not flagrant)
Handling: All comparable and pleasant in use
Shading: All comparable with strong effect wide open
Stabilization: All very effective and excellent, though I like D overall the best
10D Compatible: B no, C/D yes
Warranty (USA): B/C 1 yr, D 6 yrs
Best Value: C/D Tie
Best Pick: D

Comments & Conclusions	The Lenses	Main Tests	Flare
200mm v. 270mm	Compared to 200 F2.8 L II USM	Bokeh	Bring Your "A" Game

comment |

lightrules		24-Feb-2011 06:43
It will be here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/tam18270pzd

Guest		23-Feb-2011 19:34
Any update on the new Tamron lens?

lightrules		03-Feb-2011 23:51
Sorry folks, I still need some time with the new PZD version. Will post some images and comments within a week hopefully, thanks.

Daniel		03-Feb-2011 21:18
@LR How the test with the new Tamron 18-270 PDZ ? it's better from the previous ?

Steven		29-Jan-2011 08:36
Thanks for the update! Lightrule Rulez! I was the previous guest btw, haha.

lightrules		26-Jan-2011 01:07
Interesting you ask. I have one coming tomorrow. I'll test it out but it will be a "solo" test mostly, just to see how it performs as an all-in-one zoom. Stay tuned.

Guest		24-Jan-2011 22:46
It seems the new Tammy 18-270 PZD is an significant upgrade. Are you going to do a comparative test with the new kid?

Lucas		23-Nov-2010 10:03
Cool! Looks like Tamron IQ is quite comparable to the combo lenses. I guess I will opt Tamron. Then I assume there is no problem mounting it on my Canon EOS 1000D? ^^

lightrules		23-Nov-2010 05:50
The Tamron 18-270 VC is a very good superzoom, but it has its limitations optically. You can also look at the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS combo, or even go for faster glass that has constant f2.8 speed. It all depends on your budget and needs. LR

Lucas		22-Nov-2010 22:02
Guys, I'm new to the DSLR photography and I was just wondering but is the Tamron 18-270 mm compatible with 1000D? Will it provide the same results as the one used on the 40D? Cause currently I have 18-55 and 75-300mm kit that came with the camera but none of them have IS. Should try to get one now or wait if there is a new release of these lenses if any.... Any advice will be most appreciated. ^^

lightrules		15-Dec-2009 21:27
I'd rather take the Tamron 18-270 VC over those 2 lenses you have currently. [How do you get 13 yrs warranty?] Anyway, there are other options too though like the 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS, or maybe a Tamron or Sigma f2.8 standard zoom. You need to decide what focal lengths you want covered and how much you want to spend and what you want to shoot mostly...then decide. Best regards, LR.

rev_hard		14-Dec-2009 19:59
I'm new to DSLR photography and current have a 18-55 and 75-300mm lens kit for my Canon T1i. I'm looking to get a 'walk around' lens and contemplating between the 2. I can get the Tamron 18-270mm for $30 less with 13 year warranty. Am I better off with the Tamron as performance seems to be comparable between the 2 other than the AF?? How much impact would this really have?

lightrules		07-Dec-2009 02:54
Both are good superzooms. The new Sigma 18-250 OS seems to be a good one too. At day's end, you're not going to see a huge difference between these lenses optically. The Tamron is very tempting as it gives you 6 years of warranty in the USA. The Sigma and Canon give only 1 year. But they're all good superzooms, if that is what you're looking for. They do some things real well, and they don't do some things well at all. You just need to decide what you want/need for it to do for you.

priyo		05-Dec-2009 20:32
What could the best choice for xsi in general? Canon 18-200 or Tamron 18-270? Is there any suh review (for xsi)?

concerned		30-Nov-2009 23:55
Is anyone having a problem with the Tamron 18-270 VR lens regarding difficulty in zooming (tight); not wanting to stop at specified mm settings and/or any softness at extension (270mm)?

Guest		03-Oct-2009 13:06
Yhanx ever so much. I guess I guess I thought that the extra 70 mm in zoom would enable me to get some trickier shots, lioke small birds in high trees, but it really woldn't make that much difference overall.

lightrules		02-Oct-2009 23:35
Noel, in terms of the superzooms, the Canon 18-200 IS is a good choice. In fact, the Canon is very close in overall quality to the Tamron 18-270 VC and the new Sigma 18-250 OS. I would just stick with what you have and enjoy it. Best regards.

Noel		02-Oct-2009 22:19
Hi I just traded my Nikon D80 for a new Canon Rebel T1I. I love nature photography, so I bought the 18-200 Canon lens with IS. My friend told me I should have bought the Tamron 18-300, but when I asked the salesman @ the photo store, he told me the Tamron wouldn't give me images as sharp as the Canon. Others have said, in blogs, that the AF on the Tamron is rather slow to focus. Any thoughts?

lightrules		12-Aug-2009 01:09
Use centerpoint AF only. If the lens has trouble focusing on a subject in your room, it's not contrasty enough for the AF sensors on your body to "grab" with the max aperture of the lens. It's nothing wrong with the lens; that's the way it is for this lens..it excels outdoors in good light. Best regards! LR

M�rten		11-Aug-2009 23:13
Thanks for the suggestion on POTN. I have had ALOT of answers from the, real friendly people. I try this to be the last question. HOW can I know at WHAT kind of light the 18-270 should focus on at 270 mm. Cause in my bedroom right now there are three lights from the roof sending out some lights but I still have problems with AF and it's not getting it all the time. Should I send it back for another copy? Should it be locked on even if it takes a while? Right now in my room it's ok up til f/5.6 but at f/6.3 its more like 60-40. Would u spare me ONE last advise? Thanks for all the help and information you have provided.

lightrules		04-Aug-2009 20:26
It's normal. That's the way they work. Also, you should join a photo forum like POTN and post your questions there as you'll get others who can answer these questions for you. Enjoy.

M�rten		04-Aug-2009 19:37
I really need an answer on this please. Every time I focus and the VC is off and turns on there is a small flicker. It happens every time the VC has turned off and then gets turned on again after pressing half-way, is this only my lens or is this the way it works that the when looking trough the viewfinder it flickers/shakes. I need to know pretty fast so I can return it in case of a mailfunction. /Mårten

lightrules		04-Aug-2009 17:19
I'm sure the lens will be fine in that bag. These things aren't that poorly built! Enjoy.

M�rten		04-Aug-2009 09:11
JUST got my hands on the 18-270, OMG, it looks HUGE on my 450D. One thing, the AF is PRETTY loud. It doesn't bother me, just a little surprised. Anyway, the 270 is just SO nice. Will have to go outside in the sun after lunch and take some test shoots. Also, the lock on my lens isnt that hard acutally, maybe I got a refurbished one, but it looks new and not even touched. Is it ok to let the lens rest against the bottom of my Stealth Reporter 300? /Mårten

lightrules		02-Aug-2009 03:28
There is something in the works to preserve the contents of this site. But it's still being worked on.

M�rten		01-Aug-2009 23:58
My mind goes back and forth. I have put an order on the lens though. But then I'm thinking again. For the money I'm putting against the 18-270, would I get noticeable better image quality if I would instead go with 2 lensens instead of this one? I have the 450D Also, do you have all the info on this page saved so that it can be accesed when the site goes down?

lightrules		30-Jul-2009 16:44
Sam, the 2 lenses are comparable. Either one will do you well and work fine for what you need it do to. Marten, you got the right one; there is only one 18-270 and it has VC.

M�rten		30-Jul-2009 16:12
I don't know if you still answer questions and comments. Anyway, I just put an order on the Tamron 18-270 (although I dont know if it's the right version, they all it B003C). TAMRON LENS AF 18-270/3.5-6.3 DI II VC FOR CANON Since it says Di 2 and for Canon (translated from swedish) it must be right? The info I can find on Tamron only speaks about ONE 18-270 mm lens. I will post comments and maybe some links to pictures when I get it. I also ordered a Stealth Reporter 300 AW and HOYA UV HMC 72mm SUPER. M/årten

Sam		30-Jul-2009 12:48
How does the Sigma 18-250 compare with the Tamron 18-270?

lightrules		24-Jul-2009 15:10
I'd recommend the superzoom if you want ultimate convenience. Otherwise, go with the 2-lens combo or something like the 1855 IS + 55250 IS. Enjoy the light.

Sam		24-Jul-2009 13:48
Hi there i'm thinking of either buying a Tamron 17-280 or a 2 lenses which would be the Canon 17-85 IS USM and the Canon 70-300 IS USM, if convenience is not an option which one would you recommend? Mainly looking for IQ and AF.

lightrules		08-Jul-2009 20:26
You're kidding, right? A 70-200 f2.8 L IS or a 18-270 VC? ;-) If you can afford it, go with the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. If that's not an option, get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Enjoy the light!

Guest		08-Jul-2009 07:53
I am trying to choose some lenses for my Canon 10D. I will probably purchase the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm trying to decide if I should also buy a canon 70-200 2.8 IS or a Tamron 18-270 vc. I can get a good deal on the canon, but its still about $400 more than tammy 18-270. I'll be using it for portraits, landscapes, travel, and water skiing shots. Any suggestions??

lightrules		31-May-2009 03:45
The Tamron VC lens is designed for APS-C only. If you go FF down the road, you can simply sell off the lens later. But for now, it's the right fit for you. Get the lens you need now, not the lens you might need later. Regards.

Guest		30-May-2009 17:36
Thanks fo your fast answer, I only have 1 more question (i think :). I understand this lens is not good at all for FF. So I ask myself, will I be going up to FF? So basically, for a s a beginner do I even have to think about chagning to FF or can I happily go on with APS-C? When do you come to the point where you want to change? /Mårten

lightrules		30-May-2009 05:15
Marten, from your comments and what you prefer in a lens, I'd say the stabilized superzooms are good for you. The Tamron is a very good all-in-one; I'd recommend it if it fulfills what you need of it. It won't do some things well and it will do some other things very well. Every lens choice involves compromise; it's the nature of the beast. Best regards. LR

Guest		27-May-2009 14:34
Hi! Today I own a 450D with the kit lens, I also "borrow" a lens from my father, and old Canon 35-135 I believe. I have been looking to buy a new lens, but since i really don't know what I will shoot most it's hard. What I can tell you is that on my last vacation (I came home this sunday) i really felt that the kit lens doesn't have the zoom enough and from before that the 35-135 starts to much out. I can only afford one lens and since I'm a true beginner I feel that this lens maybe is something for me so that I can discover at which zooms I shot the most and I also like having one lens not having to change to much. It also seems like a good buy, so even if it's not totally right for me it's still a good buy. The only thing I find a little strange (and that doesn't seem to make any difference in the total judgement) is that the AF on B is TWICE as fast, how big of a difference does this make in real life shooting? Thanks for a great site /Mårten

lightrules		02-May-2009 05:52
Sorry to hear of your problems with the Tamron. I dont know what to tell you on this one; I've used many copies of it in Canon mount and no problems at all. You might want to try a friend's body or some other config. Best regards.

Artlover		30-Apr-2009 08:43
I am now on my second Tamron 18-270, and it is giving me the same headaches as the first, which I bought in August '08 with a Nikon D80 body. The auto-focus works only intermittently; after taking a shot, the AF freezes, requiring that I switch the camera off and on two or three times before the AF will re-engage. Have you heard of this problem with the Tamron? Would I be better with a Nikon lens? Does this sound like a lens problem, or more likely a faulty body?

Chris K.		08-Apr-2009 17:51
I guess your right thanks, but since i have 3 lenses maybe a good wide angle lens to make it complete maybe the Sigma 10-20 or is there a better one out?

lightrules		08-Apr-2009 15:07
Save your money and pass on the 70-300 DO. Put the money towards another lens, maybe a fast prime or a longer tele like a 400mm with stabilization. The Sigma 150-500 OS would be a nice addition as well for you.

Chris K.		07-Apr-2009 20:19
Hi Lightrules, the lenses i have now are the Tamron 17-50 which is awesome, Sigma 30 1.4 that is awesome as well, and then i have the Tamron 18-270 VC that is a pretty good one. My question is, I was thinking of buying the EF 70-300 IS DO lens but keep changing my mind since i have the 18-270 and also heard that i probably wouldn't see that much difference anyway, just wanted your opinion thanks;)

Guest		24-Mar-2009 22:13
Thanks for the reply. The 18-270 (EUR479) and 18-250(EUR569??) are almost twice the price of a 18-125 OS (EUR279). If you say IQ is equal and AF is quicker....on both photozone and slrgear the 18-125 gets just a little better review; I am just paying for the extra 125-270mm. I don't know if I use those mm that often for >200 Euro; for special occasions I can take my 70-300 IS with me. Or can I sell the last one if I would choose the Tamron??? I bet not! I'll indeed better wait a month for the test the new Sigma. Thanks again for your time and effort!

lightrules		24-Mar-2009 02:06
The 18-125 OS has slightly quicker AF with its micro HSM, but I would still go with the Tamron superzoom over it. IQ-wise, it's as good (no kidding). But how about the new Sigma 18-250 OS HSM coming out? That looks like a nice one too.

Patrick		23-Mar-2009 23:36
I've had the old non-os sigma 18-125 and was very happy with it. This one went to my sister with my 350D and now I am looking for a new 'kit' on my 40D. Probably I go again for the new Sigma 18-125 OS....cheap.....better IQ then the Sigma 18-200 OS...but how is the 18-125 OS compared to the new 18-270 VC and especially the IQ and AF speed? The 270mm seems great if the IQ is comparable. Thanks for the answer!

lightrules		25-Feb-2009 21:21
Greetings Mircea. The zoom lock on the Tamron VC lens is very tight. It's normal. I've used probably 5 copies and they are all super hard. I need to dig my nail in pretty good and then it goes. But it loosens somewhat with use, but not a whole lot! But it's normal for this lens. As for barrel distortion, I don't think it's any more flagrant than the other superzooms. It's there, but it's not crazy bad at all IMO. Regards, LR.

Guest		25-Feb-2009 20:37
mirceani 25-Feb-2009 20:36 Hi, found this website and I need some help I just purchased a new lens, TAMRON AF 18-270 DiII VC Canon mount. I have two issues with it, so before I return it I need somebody's opinion. First, the zoom LOCK button, to move that swithc you will brake all your ten nails, or use a screwdriver to slide the switch on/off. I assume this is wrong, correct? Secon, the pictures turn out nice , except that at 188mm, you can really see the fisheye effect, which is bothering. Compared to my old SIGMA 10-200 lens, where at 18 there was no such effect. Is that normal? Do you think my lens is deffective and needs to be replaced/returned? Thank you Mircea

Rad		22-Jan-2009 09:11
As promised here what I have to say about the 50d + 18-200 IS. You can simply feel they where made for each other. AF is really fast and accurate for non-USM lens, even in rather poor indoor light. IS on the long range could be better. It’s fine in day light, but forget about handheld close-ups in weak light. It’s difficult even with 580EX. That said if lens is all you need then Tamron 18-270 is the way to go. However if you feel like upgrading you can’t go wrong with 50D + 18-200 IS kit.

rad		16-Jan-2009 10:39
Many thanks for the response lightrules. However I found a great bargain for 50d + 18-200 kit that I just couldn't let go. That drained my lens budget for a while. I'll make sure to post some comments on the kit once I played with it for a bit. Cheers

lightrules		14-Jan-2009 16:39
Rad, I still recommend the 18-270 to you over the 28-300. The difference between 270 and 300 is not much, while the difference between 18 and 28 is huge. You say you have the 17-55, as do I, but I also have the 18-270 now and they are totally different lenses. Most people will use the 17-55 and 18-270 for totally different photography, so the overlap is good and warranted. But if I must answer your question about the 28-300 VC, I hear it's good but not as good as the new 18-270 VC. That's not from my own experience though, only from my readings online and from peer comments. Enjoy the light.

Rad		14-Jan-2009 10:05
I’d like to continue on Mike’s question. In my case I’m not that concerned about the wide angle. I have it well covered with 17-55. Anyone can tell me witch one has better IQ on middle to long range? Does 28-300 benefit from so called ‘sweet spot’ on ASP-C? I’m also concerned about AF performance, especially on the long end as 450D manual says that is works only up to f/5.6. Is AF any good on Canons from 200mm up? Many thanks, Rad

lightrules		23-Dec-2008 05:30
Mike, the general consensus is that you get the 18-270 VC for 1.6x and the 28-300 VC for FF. The former is designed for APS-C; the latter is made for either but with FF in mind. There's a big difference on APS-C between 18mm and 28mm as your starting point, so the newer 18-270 VC is much more attractive. In this sense the 270mm versus 300mm is seen as fairly insignificant. I'd strongly recommend the 18-270 over the 28-300 if you are shooting APS-C. Enjoy the light.

Mike		23-Dec-2008 04:57
Has anyone done a comparison of the Tamron 18-270mm F3.5 VC to the Tamron 28-300mm VC? Was going to get the 18-270 after this review, but have a friend who is considering letting his 28-300 go and so I am curious as to the differences/trade-offs between the two models? They look very similar with the exception of the fp range of course. Thanks, Mike

lightrules		12-Dec-2008 05:07
Hi there, I've no experience with the 18-200 VR from Nikon, so I can't comment on it vis-a-vis the other superzooms. But after using all the Canon mount units, I still like the Tamron VC the best. It would be the one I personally use if I were to pick one of them up. Enjoy the light.

Guest		12-Dec-2008 04:03
Hi lightrules, thanks for your great review! realise that lots of comparisons and ppl talking abt Canon vs Tamron / Sigma. i'm not sure if you've any experience, but any comments comparing the Nikkor DX lens AF-S VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G vs the Tamron? =) thanks!

lightrules		26-Nov-2008 00:59
Bob, I recommend either the Hoya Super HMC or B+W MRC UV filters. And no, you don't need a slim unit. Enjoy.

athomas772		26-Nov-2008 00:22
Lightrules, what UV filter do you reccomend for the 72mm Tamron. With the Tamron 18mm at the wide end, do I need a Slim MC filter? Thanks Bob

gabe balazs		24-Nov-2008 16:33
I lean towards keeping the lens, I mean I will have it exchanged by the dealer I bought it from. If the second one is soft again with VC, I will have it serviced. I hope I'm making the right decision... By the way, I contacted several Flickr members who own the Tamron 18-270 and asked for test pictures: same subject with and without VC. I have received one response so far. That particular owner's lens shows only a tiny bit of sharpness difference between the VC on and VCoff pictures. My lens is much worse obviously. I'm not sure if it is proper to post a link here but I'll try. I have pictures posted in a thread on the Canon Photography forum. The topic title is 'Tamron 18-270 - Backfocus problem' I will call the dealer today to explore my options. I know they have a 30-day no fee exchange policy. In the meantime, other owners have promised me test photos. I'll post an update later.

lightrules		24-Nov-2008 06:09
Bob, I did not find my two copies of the Tamron 18-270 to have any problems while using VC. It's most likely a copy-dependent issue and it's too bad for Gabe. I recommended to him to send it in for a service tune up since that's why there's a 6-year warranty. But I am not sure what he ended up doing. Enjoy the light.

athomas772		24-Nov-2008 05:06
Lightrules, great tests of the Tamron and Canon lenses. However, I am following up on Gabe's post regarding the Tamron being soft when using VC. Would the Canon results be the same as the Tamron? I ask this because I will be shooting most of the time "handheld" with VC or IS on and this is important in my purchase decision between these two lenses. Thanks in Advance. Bob

lightrules		22-Nov-2008 08:03
For these tests, all stabilized units were turned OFF and the lenses mounted on a tripod.

gabe balazs		22-Nov-2008 01:26
I assume you had the VC on when you took the test photos with the Tamron? If yes, then I have a bad copy.

gabe balazs		21-Nov-2008 23:17
Hi, My Tamron 18-270 arrived this afternoon. I've taken about 100 pictures and found something interesting and concerning. I noticed that some of the pictures are softer than others, taken of the same subject. I am a pixel peeper so I had to find the reason for the softness. Now, I only tried this at 18mm. After testing, I came to the conclusion that pictures with 'VC On' are softer than with 'VC off'. That is odd. I have the 55-250mm IS Canon lens too, but that lens does not do that. I'm fairly disappointed right now. I will try to test it again, temperature outside right now is about 28-30 F, so very cold. I don't know if that has to do anything with this problem. If this is a common occurence, this might explain all the complaints of soft focus, occasionally soft images etc.

gabe balazs		21-Nov-2008 22:31
Hi, My Tamron 18-270 arrived this afternoon. I've taken about 100 pictures and found something interesting and concerning. I noticed that some of the pictures are softer than others, taken of the same subject. I am a pixel peeper so I had to find the reason for the softness. Now, I only tried this at 18mm. After testing, I came to the conclusion that pictures with 'VC On' are softer than with 'VC off'. That is odd. I have the 55-250mm IS Canon lens too, but that lens does not do that. I'm fairly disappointed right now. I will try to test it again, temperature outside right now is about 28-30 F, so very cold. I don't know if that has to do anything with this problem. If this is a common occurence, this might explain all the complaints of soft focus, occasionally soft images etc.

lightrules		19-Nov-2008 16:55
D and E have a similar FOV at infinity focus. But as you move away from infinity focus, D will have a greater loss of focal length than E, due to its superzoom design. [All superzooms have this effect] So if you shoot both at MFD, you will find that E actually has a much narrower FOV than D. In fact, at MFD, D is probably more like a 120mm focal length. Crazy huh? But at infinity, D should have a slightly narrower FOV, which is exactly what I've found.

Ray		19-Nov-2008 13:42
i tested the tamron 18-270 and the canon 55-250 today and i realised that the canon zoomed further @ 250 than the tamron @ 270...how is that possible??

SirCore		13-Nov-2008 16:50
Guest, Virtually every picture in the test shows Canon performs better. For example the 55mm F5.6 test: Look at the crops, the rectangular metal and screw are clearly sharper on the Canon. Look at the fence all over the crop, same deal, Canon beats the Tamron. Another example, the 135 mm F5.6: The bar with rust is sharper and more vivid on the Canon. The sign as well is clearer on the Canon with best text contrast against the white background. An interesting test is the 200mm f5.6: The Canon image is of better contrast and sharpness (look at the word “calif”, or ND which really screams out). The only place where the Tamron wins over the Canon is in the crop of the metal bar with rust. This is to be expected as the Canon is at its limit (200mm) whereas the Tamron has 70mm more to go. Regarding the Bokeh, as I said before I hardly see a difference. To me it’s more of a “feeling” kind of factor. You are right stating the Canon pictures are usually darker than the Tamron’s. But to me that’s a very small price to pay. SirCore.

Guest		13-Nov-2008 15:06
@SirCore: * the price difference is not everywhere the same. Not everybody lives in the US. In europe the prices, converted to US$ are US$560 for the Canon (B) and US$660 for the Tamron (D), and just 1 year warranty for all stuff. * you keep on mentioning that the Canon (B) gives the best IQ. Can you point me to samples so I can also see that? I just browsed thourgh the complete set of tests of LightRules but I can't recall anywhere that the Canon (B) was the best, however the Tamron (D) was at some points. * Bokeh of the Tamron (D) is less distractive compared to the Canon (B) and Sigma (C) * The flare photo of the Canon (B) looks better then the Tamron (D), but then the Canon's picture is a lot darker somehow. * the AF-speed is the only thing I'm still doubting about... I've handled the Canon (B) on a 450D and it was very fast...

Guest		13-Nov-2008 14:16
Since B has the fastest AF for the superzooms, I was wondering how it compares with A in normal and low light?

SirCore		13-Nov-2008 14:01
In my opinion the price difference between the Canon and the Tamron is negligible. The overall performance however is better with the Canon. Image quality is better, Flare as well, Bokeh – can't really tell the difference and the AF…well as Lightrules said, it's twice as fast. The way I see it, the only major advantage the Tamron has over the Canon is the 270mm. Does this justify buying the Tamron? Not in my opinion. Still, I decided to wait for additional reviews by SLR Gear or DPREVIEW before making my final decision.

lightrules		13-Nov-2008 06:44
The Canon 18-200 (as of today 11/12/08) here in the USA has a $50 rebate so it can be had for around $580 from what I've seen (you must add extra for the hood). The Tamron I've seen in the USA for about $600 even. So your prices, especially the Tamron, are certainly different from the USA, at least of the stores I know of. With that particular pricing scenario, if you can really do without the "extra 70mm" of the Tamron, that's a very good price on the Canon. Tough call, but assuming you're "okay" with 200mm max, I'd say the Canon at that kind of pricing differential. But to me that "70mm" is pretty significant in an "all-in-one" lens. Tough call.

Guest		13-Nov-2008 06:32
@Lightrules, Which would you recommend if the warranty was just 1yr on all lenses the prices where like this (they are over here): B = Canon 18-200 F3.5-5.6 IS [$640] -----> US$560 D = Tamron 18-270 F3.5-6.3 VC [$600 w/ Hood] ----> US$660 I'm seriously tempted for the Canon with these prices.

DJS		11-Nov-2008 17:58
Oh, I agree (and I have my Tamron lens on order to prove it). But it would still make an interesting addition to see some samples for the sake of comparison. Just a thought. Thanks for all you've done here.

lightrules		11-Nov-2008 17:22
Those who say things like "might as well just use a P&S than a superzoom" either have never used a DSLR + superzoom combo or simply don't know what they're talking about (usually the latter). Without writing a book here on it, there is no way a P&S can match the abilities of a DSLR like the 40D mated to a superzoom like the 18-200 IS or 18-270 VC in instant start-up, almost no shutter lag, FPS, DOF control, and overall imaging quality.

DJS		11-Nov-2008 17:10
There are some who insist putting a superzoom lens on a dSLR produces no better results than using a superzoom P&S for the same price or less. To addess this, it would be an interesting addendum to to see the same scenes shot with a Panasonic Lumix FZ-18, Canon S5 IS or the new SX10 IS.

SirCore		10-Nov-2008 04:51
Everyone, problem solved! I couldn't sleep at night due to the differences I had with almost everyone here so I called another friend of mine and we examined the pictures again. We agreed upon everything but one little thing. B is Canon, C is Sigma. It turns out I confused the two and regarded the Canon images as the Sigma's. It all made sense afterwords. Sorry for the confusion, an honest mistake. It is clear Canon produces the sharpest all around pictures and I decided to prefer better image quality and faster AF speed over an extra 70 mm. Plus prices went down for the Canon so it just got more appealing to buy it. I have to say hese kind of tests are exctly what I'm missing in other sites. Analytical, mathematical based review is always good and impressive (with all the graphs the show there) but it doesn't help to finalize the desiciio which lens to but out of two, or three in this case. Lightrules, thnks again for the effort! SirCore

Guest		09-Nov-2008 22:58
Many thanks for this test. I've hoping to get a new DSLR soon and will need a lens with a decent focal length to go with it. I've been looking for Tamron reviews since I heard about it, but there's not many to be found. This is a very helpful test. Now I just need to convince myself that the convenience of the single 18-270 is worth ~£250 over the 18-55+55-250 combo... @SirCore, seriously, you find the corner crops of the Sigma (C) better than the others? To me the C shots were pretty much as Lightrules stated, i.e. the worst. The corner C shots @ 55mmF5.6 are shocking compared to the others. But if you like it, that's good - because it's the cheapest :)

SirCore		08-Nov-2008 16:16
Forgot to sign my nick name SirCore in the post below.

Guest		08-Nov-2008 16:15
Lightrules, how was the AF speed measured? To answer the two guests who commented on my IQ observations, I'd like to say I examined the pictures again and also had some friends of mine look at it as well. Both me and my friends are positively sure the sigma IQ is generally better. Compered to the Canon it is dramatically better while the Tamron is almost as good as the Sigma. So how is the Sigma "worst IQ" is beyond me. With the Tamron offering 270 [mm] the question remains, which to choose. P.S Any guess on what kind of deals to expect (if at all) for Christmas?

lightrules		08-Nov-2008 15:19
Mike, the bokeh comparison at 200mm f8 I think is a good indicator of bokeh performance. That's right about where bokeh is going to be ugliest with each lens. Shooting wide open each lens will definitely look a little better. Thanks for the comments (all) and take care. LR

IS USM		08-Nov-2008 09:24
Lightrules, thanks for the (as always) great test! I´m glad to see that the Canon has so much faster AF, and also better in lowlight. The sharpness of the Tamron is impressiv beeing a 18-270! :) You should open your own site, and sell some ads to give you some money for your (I bet time consuming) effort. With 2000+ hits in 15 minutes, Maybe this would work.. :) When you got some rest after this great test, The bokeh I´ve heard gets worse as you stop down..? I´d be (maybe others too?) interested to see a bokeh-comparison with the lenses wide open. If you want more/better bokeh you would probably shoot wide open.. Maybe this don´t change the verdict but it would be interesting to see if this only is a myth.. Thanks again /Mike from Sweden

Guest		08-Nov-2008 08:21
Lightrules, thanks for taking the time to carry out these tests. Will share info with friends and colleagues who are looking for superzoom comparison tests. :)

lightrules		08-Nov-2008 05:45
Pat, you are right that the Sigma OS lens is a good walkaround choice. But the newcomers are better. That's my opinion of the matter at this point. But at the price the Sigma OS is going for nowadays, it's quite a bargain. I've got some of my favorite travel and family photos taken with the 18-200 OS, so I know it can deliver under the right usage and conditions. Enjoy the light!

pat		08-Nov-2008 03:44
Thanks for the test. In your previous test on the Sigma 18-200, it seems to do great as a walkaround len. So this still hold and just that the new comers are better?

Chris K.		07-Nov-2008 21:39
Very good lightrules, I'm really glad i bought the Tamron 18-270;)

lightrules		07-Nov-2008 21:01
Thanks to all so far with your “appreciative” comments. As to specific questions from some of you: (1) In terms of FOV at 18mm, the Canon and Tamron are about identical while the Sigma is only very slightly narrower, maybe more like 18.5mm or so. But it really is not anything meaningful to note. They are very comparable in this regard. (2) In terms of magnification, again they are comparable; you can easily view the manufacturer's specs on this.

elbimboy		07-Nov-2008 20:45
Finally the results are in....Thank you very much for the tests! Very much appreciated.

Eric		07-Nov-2008 20:33
Thank you for the test. I feel the same exact way when I tested these lens' out. I used to own the Sigma, tested the Canon 18-200 at Canoga Camera, and currently own the Tamron and I feel the Tamron 18-270 is the best superzoom lens out there in the market today. I'm glad you noticed the AF speed differences between the superzooms, as I have. For folks that want low light AF speed, get a cheap Canon 50mm 1.4 and you'll be good to go. Thanks again. Great review.

Arn		07-Nov-2008 19:24
Lightrules, I took a second (and a harder) look at the pics and if you don't mind, I'll say what I saw in the pics in regards to resolution. The center crops all look just about good enough for me (except Canon's 18-200 looks a little soft at 18mm f3.5 but sharp enough at f5.6), so I concentrated on the border crops. borders: 18mm f3.5: A, B+D tie, C (D looks like it has camera shake here, but that's probaly just barrel distortion) 18mm f5.6: A, B (barely better than C+D), C+D tie 55mm f5.6: B+D tie, A, C 55mm f8: D (barely), B, A, C 135mm f5.6: B, D, C 135mm f8: B (barely), D, C 200mm f5.6: D, B+C tie 200mm f8: D, B+C tie In the end, I think along with the AF performance the corner performance would make the Canon 18-200 most interesting to me. The performance of 18-135 is more important to me than performance at 200mm. Of course, someone who doesn't need good corner performance (and needs 200-270mm) might choose differently. Also, I have to say that the Tamron has got a remarkable VC, beating Canon's IS. DPreview said in their review that the 18-200IS has the best in-lens stabilization they've yet seen (they haven't tested the Tamron 18-270). So, nice one from Tamron.

Arn		07-Nov-2008 19:22
Thanks for the review and the comment on the AF speed, but I would also like to have some more detailed information about the AF, if possible. Especially about the low light AF performance. Incredible that the Tamron is so much better than the Canon in image quality and on the other hand it's sad that it doesn't have good AF...

Guest		07-Nov-2008 19:13
Am I missing a Stabilization test somewhere? I see the verdict, but no examples.

Dan in NJ, U.S.A.		07-Nov-2008 18:55
Thanks for the very helpful comparison, LightRules! Wonderful timing too -- I'm about to take a trip to China and don't want to drag a whole bag of lenses with me. This really helps guide my decision for choosing a travel lens.

lightrules		07-Nov-2008 18:38
I just posted this test minutes ago and already you all are going at it ;) 2,000+ hits in the last 15 minutes, don't crash the PBase server!

guest		07-Nov-2008 18:31
@SirCore: The Sigma (C) clearly has the WORST IQ here. The Tamron (D) has the best IQ with the Canon (B) very close behind. You need to look at them again with the correct alphabet match this time.

Arn		07-Nov-2008 18:28
Thanks for the review and the comment on the AF speed, but I would also like to have some more detailed information about the AF, if possible. Especially about the low light AF performance. Incredible that the Tamron is so much better than the Canon in image quality and on the other hand it's sad that it doesn't have good AF...

GF		07-Nov-2008 18:22
That's the point to me: B (fast AF) or D (best IQ)? ...given that the extra 70mm of FL aren't a factor

Guest		07-Nov-2008 18:12
@SirCore: what review have you been reading? Sigma (C) best IQ? The Tamron (D) looks a lot better to me. The Canon (B) is also better then the Sigma (C). I still can't make up my mind between Tamron (D) and Canon (B), choose for a bit better IQ and a little more reach, or twice as fast AF (meaning: nailing a shot or no shot at all). @LightRules: could you elaborate a bit more please on the AF-differences???

SirCore		07-Nov-2008 18:06
First of all, thank you Lightrules for your effort. A lot of people were waiting for this test. As for the results, evidently the Canon 18-200 is a waste of time and money, thanks for clearing that up. The Sigma really surprised me as it displays the best image quality of the three super zooms. That said, the Tamron doesn't fall behind that much. So which to choose when money in not a factor? the Sigma or the Tamron? I guess image quality speaking I would go with the Sigma. Best package speaking: the Tamron. Cheers! SirCore

Guest		07-Nov-2008 17:48
Thanks a lot for the review lightrules!!! Wow.. that's a lot of difference in AF-speed!

vivek		07-Nov-2008 11:50
Lightrules, can you include some reference lens as top performer (70-200 f4IS), so that we can compare how big a comprommise it is to move to 18-200.. Vivek

Henk		07-Nov-2008 08:12
Hello LightRules, A very useful test indeed. I am in doubt to buy the Tamron 18-270 (vs. the Nikon 18-200). I read (f.i. on dpreview.com) that the AF Speed on the Tamron is really bad, specifically in lower light conditions. Figures of 2-3 seconds are given, enough to stop people buying this lens, even though image quality seems rather good. Are you planning to test AF Speed also in lower light conditions ? Would be great to compare your results (using Canon body) with the ones mentioned (many with Nikon body)... Keep up the good work !

elbimboy		06-Nov-2008 22:20
I'm giddy with excitement. I check this site everyday waiting.... lightrules RULES!!! Seriously....thank you very much for the effort!

10-Dee-Q		06-Nov-2008 18:18
Hi, Thx in Advance lightrulezz im deciding to buy either of canon 18-200 or tamron 18-270 to replace my combo of canon 18-55 and 55-250 can you also test the "macro" capabilities ? i mean the magnifiying value and minimum focus distance ? cause i always use my 55-250 as casual macro and if this new lenses can perform as good, i'll be very tempted to buy, and also please comment on the effectifness of the IS or VC or OS thank you once again.

SirCore		06-Nov-2008 17:10
I'm really waiting for this test as it will determine my next lens. I do have a feeling the Tamron 18-270 will be the winner though. As a package it seems to offer the most. Image quality speaking, I hardly expect major differences between the zoom lenses. Lightrules, keep up the good work!

Guest		06-Nov-2008 10:47
Lightrules, thanks in advance, one request: could you also please check in some with if the "18mm" and "200mm" are the same on all lenses, ie if one lens is wider then the other?

Chris K.		04-Nov-2008 22:51
Great can't wait to see how the Tamron fairs with the 18-55 and 55-250, now with the others I think Tamron will be better, i already bought the Tamron and i am impressed my friend owns the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 with the 55-250 at full zoom and my tamron at full zoom the tammy was a little better (we only tested at that setting) now with the 18-55 IS the only place it beat my tamron was at f/5.6 it was sharper but anywhere else it was not, also the Tamron has better colors;)

Guest		04-Nov-2008 07:40
Thanks for your efforts LightRules! Highly appreciated! (But it's a pity you don't reveal any results at all yet ;) )

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment