# Tamron 18-200 lens. VR or no VR?



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

Hi- I'm looking to buy a allpurpose lens for my nikon d3000. So I decided upon the Tamron series.

I'm confused between the 18-270 VC (their equivalent of VR) and the 18-200 with no VC.

the difference is about 200$. 

I don't do a lot of low light photography.

BUT, when I'm sight seeing, I like to take zoomed in photographs. How important would VR be when I'm zooming at 200mm?

Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## usayit (Nov 1, 2011)

Get the 18-270mm  Not because it has VC because there were improvements over the 18-200mm and the 18-250mm that was replaced.   A more difficult decision would between the 18-270mm and 18-250mm (new old stock) w/ a discontinue discount.  

PS> The Sony 18-250mm and Pentax 18-250mm are rebadged Tamron 18-250s.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

what kind of improvements? enough to warrant an extra 200$?? I'm not a professional anything. so I don't want to spend money for features that i won't be using.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 1, 2011)

The features you won't be using are improved sharpness and color rendering. If you want clean, clear, sharp photos-go for the extra buck. If you aren't so picky about image quality? then go for the saved buck.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Nov 1, 2011)

I have the 18-270 it's a pretty nice lens, not very good for low light photography though.  My only complaint about it is the zoom mechanism is a little loose and if it's say at 50mm and you are walking around it will slide out to 270mm.  You will feel a loose spot while zooming with the lens Tamron seem to do this through out their lenses.  Sigma has a much smoother zoom but doesn't have as wide a range.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> I have the 18-270 it's a pretty nice lens, not very good for low light photography though.  My only complaint about it is the zoom mechanism is a little loose and if it's say at 50mm and you are walking around it will slide out to 270mm.  You will feel a loose spot while zooming with the lens Tamron seem to do this through out their lenses.  Sigma has a much smoother zoom but doesn't have as wide a range.



yes, that lens creep is something that would definitely piss me off. the 18-200 apparently has a "zoom lock" mechanism.

you have the one with VC right? in what ways is it lacking for low-light photography?


----------



## usayit (Nov 1, 2011)

I believe the 18-270mm has zoom lock as well.. I'm pretty sure of it as with the 18-250mm.   The 18-200mm had known issues at the farther ends of the zoom in terms of sharpness.   The newer versions of the lens improves a bit on IQ and sharpness at the farther end.  The 18-200mm is often seen as a "kit" lens of sorts for those shops assembling their own box'd deals.  When it was first released, it was priced similarly to the 18-270 and 18-250 but have long since been offered as a low-cost alternative.  

All these lenses have relatively slow max apertures which can be an obstacle for low-light photography.  

btw.. here's one place that has several of these Tamron super zooms reviewed

http://www.photozone.de/reviews

Tamron a while back was the company to consider if you needed a super zoom of wide range....  



As for your question about image stabilization, there are so many variables involved.  How steady are you with the camera?  How much light is there at any particular situation for a fast shutter speed?   IS (or whatever it is called) is not a silver bullet but every little bit helps.   Personally, I'd have a hard time shooting handheld at 200mm @ f/5.6+ unless there was lots of light.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

well, if i'm doing anything in low-light then it's usually with a tripod. so that takes care of that.

my 2 major worries are 1. quality of the photographs at the either end of the spectrum 18 or 200 (or 270)
                               2. actual necessity of VC if 95% of my photographs are taken in daylight.

Now how low is low-light? Is a sunset low light? or are we talking lower?
I'm sorry if my questions seem stupid. I'm learning. But I'm having a tough time finding answers to some of my more "stupid" questions.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

usayit said:


> I believe the 18-270mm has zoom lock as well.. I'm pretty sure of it as with the 18-250mm.   .



I'm looked at the technical details on bhphotovideo and amazon. No mention of zoom lock.

on the other hand- the 18-200 has explicit mention of a zoom lock.  

So how big a deal is the zoom lock? I have a 70-200 Nikkor. And i Have never experienced lens creep. And it doesn't have a zoom lock either.
Is it a problem with tamron lenses?


----------



## shootermcgavin (Nov 1, 2011)

Zoom lock on 18-270 is at 18 otherwise there is no lock that I know of.  It's not great for low light photography because it starts at f3.5 and goes to 6.3, I try to stay under 2.8 if the lighting is not ideal.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

the.j129 said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the 18-270mm has zoom lock as well.. I'm pretty sure of it as with the 18-250mm.   .
> ...



oops! meant to write 55-200. 

That's rich. Don't know when I'd be able to own a 70-200.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> Zoom lock on 18-270 is at 18 otherwise there is no lock that I know of.  It's not great for low light photography because it starts at f3.5 and goes to 6.3, I try to stay under 2.8 if the lighting is not ideal.



I just found it strange that both website made it a point to mention the zoom lock feature on the 18-200 but didn't mention it for the 18-270.

But if you say it does- then that's good.

so I'm assuming that you have the 18-270 VC? 

these are my main queries-
1. quality of the photographs at the either end of the spectrum 18 or 200 (or 270)
 2. actual necessity of VC if 95% of my photographs are taken in daylight.
3. how big a deal is the zoom lock feature? if i were to aim at something pointing down, would the lens just come out on its own??


----------



## shootermcgavin (Nov 1, 2011)

You will feel it right away, throw a tamron on and then throw on a sigma...  to me they are equal I just prefer the sigma the way the zoom feels is smoother where Tamron is real solid then loose then solid again...  You might like the Tamron better though throw it on the camera and check it out.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 1, 2011)

What is your max budget for this purchase? 
VC matters if you will be shooting with a shutter speed that is under about 1/400 on that lens. It's very handy to have if it's an all around lens you will be using for everything. It is NOT necessary. There was amazing photography long before there was VR/VC/IS/OS.

If you are wishing you had a 70-200 f/2.8 and are already at the $650 budget, save a month or so and go with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> What is your max budget for this purchase?
> VC matters if you will be shooting with a shutter speed that is under about 1/400 on that lens. It's very handy to have if it's an all around lens you will be using for everything. It is NOT necessary. There was amazing photography long before there was VR/VC/IS/OS.
> 
> If you are wishing you had a 70-200 f/2.8 and are already at the $650 budget, save a month or so and go with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
> AF001N700 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Mount - USA Warranty




actually. bhphotovideo is selling the 18-270 VC for 400$. and the 18-200 (non VC) for 220$.

Soooo, I'm undecided. I have the 400$. but I'd rather not spend the extra 180$ if it's for a feature that i won't be using.
But since I'm sure that there will be times when i will go well below 1\400, I guess I'll get the VC then.

How's the quality at the 270 end?


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> If you are wishing you had a 70-200 f/2.8 and are already at the $650 budget, save a month or so and go with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
> AF001N700 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Mount - USA Warranty



oh that 70-200 was a typo. i actually want ONE lens. that will let me do everything. And that will have some semblance of quality.
I was sightseeing in the summer and I was so frustrated because I had to constantly change lens between the nikkor 18-55 and 55-200.

so i just want one that will do it all.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> There was amazing photography long before there was VR/VC/IS/OS.



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## usayit (Nov 1, 2011)

the.j129 said:


> shootermcgavin said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom lock on 18-270 is at 18 otherwise there is no lock that I know of.  It's not great for low light photography because it starts at f3.5 and goes to 6.3, I try to stay under 2.8 if the lighting is not ideal.
> ...



AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD; Tamron USA, Inc.

Last time I checked, its the same as the 18-200mm in terms of functionality.   Zoom creep is generally a common thing with megazooms at this price range.


Don't think of low-light versus lots of light.  Think in terms of stops.  If you normally can handhold a 200mm lens at 1/500 then IS might help you bring that down to 1/250 or 1/125th.  "Might" is important as it depends on how steady of a shooter you are.  Remember, this only helps with camera shake and not subject movement.  Its not a magic thing.... in general, tripod or monopod is better but its nice to have.  As I said, you shouldn't worry too much between VC versus non-VC.   I would be more concern with image quality of the 18-200mm versus 18-270mm.  The former is a rather old lens design (I think the 1st tamron super-zoom specifically for APS crop cameras).


----------



## usayit (Nov 1, 2011)

PS.. no stupid questions have been asked....


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 1, 2011)

I am just not a fan of the all around lenses, but then I use the 70-200 as my almost everything lens-both on crop sensor and full frame. My other lenses collect dust... A LOT. 
If you are buying an all around make sure it's the best you can buy.
There is compromise in quality on the mega zooms like that because the lens has to work over such a long range of the zoom. You are also talking lenses that REQUIRE you to shoot in the full light of day or add light. They are not lenses you can expect to shoot indoors without flash at all with. The VR/VC/IS/OS helps with that immensely. f/6.3 requires *A LOT* of light when you have to be at a shutter of 1/500 to avoid shake... A portrait in the lovely evening light at that would probably require you to use flash as even maxing your ISO won't get your exposure up there.

Set your current lens at 6.3 and spend a day shooting in all kinds of light with it there.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> I am just not a fan of the all around lenses, but then I use the 70-200 as my almost everything lens-both on crop sensor and full frame. My other lenses collect dust... A LOT.
> If you are buying an all around make sure it's the best you can buy.



so what happens when you're trying to shoot something between 18-70? I mean, even today, I was trying to take a few shots of the golf course across the street from me...i had to keep shifting between the 2 lenses. got a little frustrating.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> If you are buying an all around make sure it's the best you can buy.
> There is compromise in quality on the mega zooms like that because the lens has to work over such a long range of the zoom. .



so would you consider the 18-270 VC a good lens? honest opinion.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> The VR/VC/IS/OS helps with that immensely. f/6.3 requires *A LOT* of light when you have to be at a shutter of 1/500 to avoid shake... A portrait in the lovely evening light at that would probably require you to use flash as even maxing your ISO won't get your exposure up there.



I didn't follow this bit. so if i bought the 18-270 VC, you're saying i still wouldn't be able to shoot in the evening light without flash? or were you talking about being unable to take photographs at f/6.3 if i DIDN'T have VC. 
just a little confused.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 1, 2011)

I guess I don't generally shoot anything that close to me. I shoot a lot of sports, portraits and weddings. The wide angles get me into trouble with distortion problems. I use it for family portraits and stuff like that, but the longer focal lengths are just what I am all about. I'd love to trade in my 17-50 f/2.8 (which is useless on a full frame, can't use it) for an 85mm f/1.4. Not gonna happen-price is an object here.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

usayit said:


> PS.. no stupid questions have been asked....



thanks! I was so afraid of sounding stupid!

I'm new to this field. and just learning. I'm reading up a lot on this...but so much of it doesn't make sense...and i don't really have anybody I can ask. But thanks anyway.

Now medicine...or computers. that's my field of expertise.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 1, 2011)

the.j129 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > If you are buying an all around make sure it's the best you can buy.
> ...


MY opinion on it isn't going to do you any good. I don't like the all in ones and I wouldn't shoot with one. I won't shoot with anything that isn't a constant f/ of 2.8 or better for the most part. There are only about 3 or 4 variable f/ lenses I would own and they're not any where near that long of a zoom. However, unlike you I am a professional, so there is a big difference between what is good for me and for you. 

As for consumer lenses? It's not bad. Vacation lens or scouting lens? It's not bad. There are some guys on here who will give you an opinion that is better suited to your use of it than I can.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Nov 1, 2011)

The 18-270 is a good walking lens, it's a great never have to switch take it with the kids trick or treating, to a baseball game, to somewhere you don't want to have a ton of lenses but realize you might miss a shot due to light and may not be getting the best crisp image possible from a lens.  I'll be buying a 15-50 and 70-200 also but then you're talking another $2500.  You gotta buy for what fits your shooting style and what makes sense price wise to you.


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> The 18-270 is a good walking lens, it's a great never have to switch



so you've used it? what's the quality like? at the ends? 18mm and 270mm?


----------



## the.j129 (Nov 1, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> the.j129 said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



thank you for your help anyway!


----------

