The 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD is Tamron’s superzoom for APS-C SLRs. It offers one of the longest focal length ranges on the market, and includes both built-in optical image stabilisation a ‘piezodrive’ autofocus motor that’s quiet and reasonably fast. Image quality is best at the wider end. It’s available for Canon and Nikon mounts; a version without image stabilisation is available for Sony cameras.
Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Lens
Already own this?
This item is in your gearlist!
“ The Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD is a perfectly competent superzoom that squeezes a huge focal length range into a compact package.”
- 18-270mm focal length
- 27-405mm equivalent focal length on APS-C cameras, 28.8-432mm equivalent focal length on Canon APS-C cameras
- F3.5-6.3 maximum aperture; F22-40 minimum
- Micromotor-type AF motor without full-time manual focusing
- Image stabilization
- 62mm filters
- 0.49m/19.29" minimum focus
- Available in Canon EF-S, Nikon F (DX), Sony Alpha (without image stabilization) mounts
|Lens type||Zoom lens|
|Max Format size||APS-C / DX|
|Focal length||18–270 mm|
|Lens mount||Canon EF, Nikon F (DX)|
|Maximum aperture||F3.5 - F6.3|
|Minimum aperture||F22.0 - F40.0|
|Number of diaphragm blades||7|
|Minimum focus||0.49 m (19.29″)|
|Motor type||Micro-type ultrasonic|
|Full time manual||No|
|Weight||450 g (0.99 lb)|
|Diameter||74 mm (2.93″)|
|Length||88 mm (3.46″)|
|Materials||Plastic barrel, metal mount|
|Zoom method||Rotary (extending)|
|Filter thread||62 mm|
|Ergonomics and Handling||
The Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD is a perfectly competent superzoom that squeezes a huge focal length range into a compact package. Autofocus is slower than its competitors, however, and image quality is weak at the the telephoto end.
Anyone looking for a compact, lightweight, all-in-one general purpose and travel lens.
Not So Good For
Sports or action work that requires fast autofocus.
For travel photography, but not for professionals
I own this lans since a year now and have used it for about two weeks in total so far. In short: + Light and small as a typical standard zoom + Not having to change lenses when photographic diverse subjects during travels + Low price tag (... you get what you pay for) + Relatively close distance to subject (0,5m) compared to AF-S Nikkkor 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 KIT zoom lens (>1m!) o Sharpness OK for casual user, but if you are a professional with a 24MP+ camera you probably want something better. - ...
Tamron 18-270 VC PZD Lens
I purchased this lens 8 months ago to replace the original Tamron 18-270. I use the lens on a Canon 60D. What a difference! (The $100 rebate was nice, too!) In actual use, the new lens is smaller and lighter than the original, so it's much easier to use and to carry about than the original. Construction is solid and the lens feels well put together. The PZD system works well, although it sometimes hunts. Lens creep is definitely an issue. The VC system works well, too, and I've ...
Not bad for travel lense
Fred234 put 4 same reviews to low down whole review score. I have used this lense to replace my Nikon kit lenses 18-55mm & 70-200mm for one year. If you use F11 for all photos (F8 for 18mm), you can get nice sharp photos. But you may need to increase your ISO to 800 (most recent camera can handle noise under ISO 800). It is so convenience of this light, small and 62mm filter for old and lazy 35 years SLR experience traveler, like me (no need to change lense and polarize filter). You can got ...
VC issue on Nikon D7000
I measured that, when it works, VC can offer at 3 stops. I succeed to take sharp pictures at 270mm 1/50, but it depends on the distance of the subject. Problems: The VC does not work with the D7000, completely blurring some pictures. I tested it on two D7000, and I got similar results. On a D3100 I got better results. I sent the lens to Tamron. Answer: this lens is perfect. Workaround: use the Quiet mode.
Tamron 18-270 vs Sigma 18-250???
Hello...I'm new to DPREVIEW...I'm also new to photography as well as DSLR cameras...purchased a "new to me" Nikon D3000, middle of February and love it but I'm finding the lens 18-55 that came with the camera very limiting. I'm looking at the Tamron 18-270 and the Sigma 18-250...I've read the review on both lens, but for the life of me not sure which would be best or if it is simply a case of pick one??? If anyone has used one or both and would consider passing along any thoughts I'd appreciate it... Cheers
Neither... every comparison I've seen shows that the Tamron 18-250 (not 270) is the sharpest of all the super zooms. I've had the Tamron 18-250 once, but I did sell it after a couple of weeks, because I could not justify tying up that much money into a lens with that much compromise. I was also very surprised to see that 250mm on that lens actually reached *LESS* than a 55-200 lens I have. The 55-200 lens I have is way WAY sharper and outresolves the Tamron 18-250 at any setting whereever possible. I now have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which covers my indoor and short needs. I'm now accustomed to a high enough quality that I can not go back to a super zoom. So what I did is I got an efficient backpack (Fastpack 250), and became very handy swapping lenses. Looking through my collection, I noticed that by far most shots were all in the shortish range. Occasionally I reached 70, but I could have easily settled at 50. But... the convenience factor *is* a big thing too obviously, otherwise ... Continue Reading
There isn't much difference in terms of image quality. I would choose the Sigma because the HSM motor focuses faster than the Tamron. I suggest that you also consider the new Sigma 18-200 II OS HSM. I've had several all-in-ones and this is the sharpest. It also has the HSM motor and it does focus very quickly and quietly. If you get one of the Sigmas make sure that it's the new version. You can tell by the filter size. The new ones take 62mm filters while the older ones take 72mm filters. Continue Reading
mgd43...thank you for taking the time to respond to my question... because I'm so new to photography I honestly don't know what I want/need...I just know the lens I have doesn't allow for longer distance shots nor nice close up macro...I know there are individual lenses for both but I for now I want something that I can put on and leave on, I don't want to be changing/carrying lenses, nor am I at the stage where I can justify a huge expense... will the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM for the Nikon allow me to do descent macro shots as well as longer shots, in comparison to the 18-55? as I mentioned I'm truly a beginner...I've read reviews but not sure what it all means? Thank you for your time... Cheers Continue Reading
Tamron 18-270 is stuck!
I have the Tamron lens mounted on Nikon D40. I was taking pics today and seemingly out of nowhere, the lens stopped extending past 32mm. It feels like it's stuck on something so I don't want to force it. However, when I remove the lens from the camera, it seems to be fine. Any ideas for fixing this at home or do I have to send it out for service? Thanks, Nicole
there's a "lock" button on your lens, start from there. Continue Reading
if it's under warranty, i would not force it, but call tamron and ask them what to do. if the lens lock is engaged, it should not move from the 18mm range at all. IOW, it should lock the lens at 18mm. i have one that felt tight when zooming past 200mm and I sent it in. give tamron a call. in the US, their Melville service center is quite good. Continue Reading
Tamron 18-270mm PZD IQ Comparison?
Hey all, After waiting way, way too long, I've just replaced my first ever SLR (Nikon D40 + 18-55 kit lens) with the new Canon 100D + Tamron 18-270 PZD. My usage is 100% travel: I'm on the road virtually all the time, so size and weight are of utmost importance. While I'm definitely still a novice, I do have some basic understanding of terminology + concepts - and the optical compromises required to get so much range into a lens as small as this Tamron. However, I wanted to run something by you more experienced shooters... Basically, even though I was expecting *some* IQ compromise due to it being a superzoom, I was surprised at just how much worse my images are coming out as compared to my old, basic, cheapo Nikon 18-55mm kit lens. I've done a bunch of direct comparison shots and the difference is slightly visible outdoors (strong light), but significant indoors (lowish light). I guess I just wanted to post some samples and ask if this is to be expected, or if it's possible that I ...
First of all, one does not buy a slow aperture superzoom to take dimly lit interiors. Or, even well lit ones. That is for primes or possibly variable aperture zooms with a tripod. I think you are just dealing with camera shake from a slow shutter speed. Which is why the outside pic is so much better: better light enables the needed higher shutter speed. So, I don't think the softness is a function of lens or camera quality at all. Just light and circumstances. Superzooms are designed for well lit situations. If you are going to take a lot of interiors like this, I would suggest getting a 35mm 1.8 or, maybe, a Sigma 17-50 2.8. In dim lighting, speed, os, a tripod, and a flash are your best friends. Without the exif, it is hard to draw precise conclusions but I would guess you either got higher shutter speeds with the Nikon kit or you did a better job at hand holding the lighter setup. Continue Reading
I didn't have time to check out your pics but... First off, your "cheapo" D40 is/was a classic. It produced stellar images and it's almost unfair to compare some new camera to it. Second, to decide to get a new camera then go from Nikon to Canon (not that Canon is bad) is just confusing the issue so that you're not really comparing apples to apples. Third, any "superzoom" such as your new Tamron is a package of compromises. It's main feature is not having to switch lenses while traveling, not having a lens that can do it all competently. Continue Reading
First off, your "cheapo" D40 is/was a classic. It produced stellar images and it's almost unfair to compare some new camera to it. That almost makes it sound like you're saying the D40 should be superior to a newer camera, no? "Almost unfair to compare some new camera to it...?" Second, to decide to get a new camera then go from Nikon to Canon (not that Canon is bad) is just confusing the issue so that you're not really comparing apples to apples. I know, but what can I do? Just because I bought a Nikon once shouldn't mean I can never go to Canon - and once I do switch, obviously I need to be able to compare the results I'm seeing. The closest to "comparing apples to apples" I can get is shooting the exact same scene with both cameras. If the newer/more expensive setup results in a deterioration...whether I switched brands or not...then, well... Third, any "superzoom" such as your new Tamron is a package of compromises. It's main feature is not having to switch lenses while ... Continue Reading