| |
Home >> Digital Camera Accessories >> Lenses
Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras | List Price: $898.95
Discount Price: Too low to display
|
Brand: Tamron
Binding: Electronics
Release Date: 2007-01-15
Features: - Advanced Optical Design
- Internal Surface Coating to Reduce Ghosting and Flare
- Zoom Lock Mechanism
- Di-II Series Design
Great Lens, Great Price. I have no regrets. [Posted on 2008-04-01]
Though I do feel the need for VR I get closer to 250mm, this lens does great with my Nikon D70S for ALL occassions. I have no complaints, be it focusing speed or image quality / sharpness. This has become my lens of choice - 5 Stars for the buck. I did have the Nikkor 18-200 VR in mind, but for the price I chose this. I have used SLRs for 15 years and just switched to digital... I never had the option of VR and remember that I had to switch between my 18-70 and 70-300 all the time. My 70-300 had the same problem of shake as I got closer to 300 and this problem is always going to be there with longer focal lengths - Use a tripod for low-light large focal length situations. With this lens, I have no need to switch lenses while I am on the floor - which is a big plus. I use it with my Monopod for event photography and frankly, this does a great job. Note though that this only works well with cameras with APS-C sized Digital SLRs where the CMOS Sensor is close to 24 X 16 mm. THis was the perfect choice for my D70S. A++++++++++++++++.
Compared to the Nikon 18-200 VR ?? [Posted on 2008-04-09]
I was able to "test drive" this lens from the local photo dealer as at the time, the Nikon 18-200 VR was not in stock, and the price was quite attractive. But let me cut to the chase...
Tamron makes good lenses, let's not kid anyone. I have a 28-85 XR DI f2.8 for my Canon, and it is an exceptional lens. Because of it, I was not afraid to try the 18-250 for my Nikon, realizing that because of the focal range, it would likely not perform quite as well. The lens is capable of producing sharp images, and stopped down a bit, is quite good, but not quite as sharp at the wider apertures as the 28-85. But the design is different and most likely accounts for that. What makes this a great lens is the focal range, and with it, you get a sense that you can perhaps capture about situation for %99.9 of your needs.
For my personal tastes, I found the distortion to be more noticeable than the Nikon 18-200 VR. I was able to get some shots around the 38-42mm focal range where it was not noticeable at all, but my subject was a very wide brick building, and the distortion was clearly visible at the wider apertures. The Nikon has distortion too, but again, it was not IMO nearly as dramatic.
Since this is not an AF-S lens, you can hear the micro motors at work (I had the version that would work on the Nikon D40 with the built-in motor). I thought the lens handled well, was certainly light enough and versatile. The telephoto shots of the people I took certainly came out fine and one would never have known what lens those shots came from. From an overall picture quality standpoint, I had no complaints, and certainly in most cases, I believe I could rival the quality of the Nikon 18-200 VR. Where the real difference comes in between the two, and yes, I personally think the price difference is worth it, is the VR capability in the Nikon. When it comes to more low light situations or perhaps wanting to be able to get more depth of field, having the VR enables you to capture some shots that may not be as easy to get or even possible with any other lens. (Let me explain more detail as a P.S. below.)
This Tamron is a good lens, and it is possible that another copy would produce even better results than I had. Sharpness was not an issue with my copy, just the distortion was a lot more noticeable. I think it's definitely worth a look, and if possible, compare some shots between it and the Nikon 18-200 VR in the photo store to see what you think. It is quite possible that you will find a copy that is as good as the Nikon if perhaps even better(?) and save yourself some money. I ended up returning the Tamron in favor of the Nikon when it became available and haven't looked back.
Some factors I considered:
Focal Length...T 18-250...........N 18-200
Aperture.......T f3.5-6.3.........N f3.5-6.3
"Noise"........T is NOT silent....N is AF-S, but can hear VR motors
Price..........T $489.............N is $689
VR.............T None (yet!)......N VR is unbelieveable!
For me, the VR was the main deciding factor. Had the price point been even greater between the two, I may have decided that the Tamron was the winner. For my purposes and personal preferences, these two factors won me over to the Nikon. Once Tamron gets a VR or IS version, it may be an entirely different discussion.
Ultimately, the real difference is how you use the lens. Either is capable of producing exceptional results. You have to decide whether VR is worth the additional cost, and perhaps the easiest question to answer is this - how much do you shoot in low light situations, especially while on vacation? If you do a lot, then the VR is worth the additional investment. If most of your shooting is outdoors during normal daylight, then the VR may not be worth it to you.
P.S. One thing I have experimented with overall is how to use the best aperture range on my lenses. Most lenses are sharpest around f8, and many posts will tell you on these super zooms that it will vary at different focal lengths. At any rate, any lense usually is NOT the sharpest wide open. So in order take advantage of this, I change my ISO settings to where I can shoot at f8 as general rule. I don't blow up my pictures to ridiculous sizes nor do I magnify them to find the flaws at %200 or greater magnification. This was something not possible to do from shot to shot with film, and for my purposes, I've been able to get some wonderfully sharp results, both with the Tamron and Nikon lenses. What is important to me is the subject, and at the end of the day, whether I shoot at 200, 400 or 1600 ISO doesn't matter. I go for the sharpness and depth of field (what's in focus). Read my review on the Nikon 18-200 entitled "Art or Science". Whatever lens you decide upon, just get, and use it until it falls apart (both Tamron and Nikon have great warranties). Their simply tools to help you capture precious moments, not trophies to display and brag about.
Great tool for travel [Posted on 2008-05-13]
Great lens for travel.
Great zoom.
Need flash in the inside of the building or dark places.
Tamron 18-250 is a pretty good lense [Posted on 2008-05-29]
After dropping my camera with my Tamron 18-200 on it I bought the 18-250. Seems to be equally sharp although some reviewers say the 250 is better than the 200. The 200 had bad lens creep which the 250 doesn't have and that alone is a big improvement.
Good lens great price [Posted on 2008-07-14]
I got this lens for 250 dollars reconditioned, it came to me like new. Great travel lens. You do have to crank the ISO up to stop action at 250mm but that is not that big of a deal. The lens does pretty well doing macro stuff which is fun to play with.
Just for everyday shooting this lens covers 90 percent of my needs and stays on the camera almost all of the time. Unless I am going out to shoot something where I specifically need another lens this one stays on the camera which is nice because now I'm not changing lenses outdoors and risking dust on my sensor.
Click here for more details and discount information...
|
|
){kind=link}