# Tamron 18-270mm Lens



## CAG76 (Mar 18, 2010)

Hello everyone!  I just bought a Tamron 18-270mm lens.  I took some test shots downtown and wow... does it seem hard to focus.  Anyone else having these issues?  I have like 50/50 images in good focus and out of focus.  I think most of them are out of focus.  Perhaps I need to continue practicing and learning the lens?

I've had a Canon 70-300mm IS lens and traded it in for this one because I wanted an all in one lens that has quite a strong zoom.  Doesn't have to be a 300mm which I can always get another one later.  I hear so many good things about this Tamron lens.  I love the size weight and feel of it.  Also action shots seem to blur easily and the VC is turned on.  I guess I just need to figure everything out huh?

-Christopher


----------



## Dao (Mar 18, 2010)

Not sure about the AF issue.  As long as you have enough light, AF should work.

As for the action shots, to freeze the motion, you need a faster shutter speed, not VC/VR/IS/OS.


----------



## fokker (Mar 18, 2010)

At the long end of that lens the biggest aperture is what, f6.3? A lot of bodies will struggle to focus in anything other than bright light with such a narrow opening being presented. 

And yes, as stated you will not be able to freeze motion with VC - this will stop camera shake but it doesn't slow down a person running or a bird in flight, the only way to freeze motion is with a high enough shutter speed which can be difficult with a narrow aperture.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 18, 2010)

Similarly I would also suggest that lenses kind of have a learning curve. Give it time and practice with the lens. I have found that with my own lenses as I work with them I kind of learn how they focus, and they honestly seem to improve the more I use them. 

I don't honestly think they actually do improve, I think I improve in working with them.


----------



## CAG76 (Mar 18, 2010)

Thanks for all of your comments.  This helps.  Also about the aperture numbers.  I never really understood this well.  It's no wonder the lens I got rid of seem to have less blur in people moving than this lens does.  My last lens was f/4-5.6 and this one is f/3.5-6.3.  I bet it has to be that way since it has such a long zoom range from 18-270mm??  I will also play with the shutter speeds.  I'm sure I can squeeze some frozen images out of it.  I was taking photos as the sun was going down.  There were a lot of shadows.  I was not in bright sunlight.


----------



## myfotoguy (Mar 18, 2010)

CAG76 said:


> Thanks for all of your comments. This helps. Also about the aperture numbers. I never really understood this well. It's no wonder the lens I got rid of seem to have less blur in people moving than this lens does. My last lens was f/4-5.6 and this one is f/3.5-6.3. I bet it has to be that way since it has such a long zoom range from 18-270mm?? I will also play with the shutter speeds. I'm sure I can squeeze some frozen images out of it. I was taking photos as the sun was going down. There were a lot of shadows. I was not in bright sunlight.


 
Sounds like you figured it out. Those last couple sentences there, witht the low light I'll bet that lens was struggling.


----------



## fokker (Mar 18, 2010)

In good light you shouldn't have any issues with it, but yes don't expect fast shutter speeds in poor lighting when you only have f/6.3 available.


----------



## BKMOOD (Mar 19, 2010)

I&#8217;ve heard from various sources (some pro and some not) that anytime a zoom lens has to cover that much ground (say, 18 to 270), you&#8217;re going to have some focus issues, as there is a lot of glass to move around and distance to cover. The images tend to be on the soft side especially at the 270 end and focus is too slow to track moving objects. Or so I&#8217;ve heard. I don&#8217;t buy super zoom lenses just for that very reason. But this is just what I&#8217;ve heard. Whether it is actually true or not is another story.


----------



## cnutco (Mar 19, 2010)

Yep!

I have a Nikon all-around-lens too.  These types of lens are great for snap shots!  Quality action shots... nope! That is why I stepped up to the Nikon 70 - 200 /2.8.

Fast motion... get a fast lens.

Have fun.


----------



## CAG76 (Mar 19, 2010)

Thanks so much!  You all really helped!  The last two replies really shed some light on the situation.  I think it's true that this lens is not good for action shots.  I will have to get another lens later.  I was hoping to use it at a basketball game, but, wow, I doubt it will work well at all.  Especially indoors where there's not much light. No sunlight.  Maybe I'll have a new lens by the time Moto GP comes to Indy in August.


----------



## jchin (Mar 19, 2010)

I had similar focus hunting experience with my old Canon 75-300mm lens.  I think it has to do with the lack of light getting to the focus sensor at the long focal length end of the lens.  That is the reason why I upgraded to a 70-200/2.8L.


----------



## Gaerek (Mar 19, 2010)

I have the Tamron 28-300 (got it cheap from a friend, makes a good "I don't want to worry about carrying 50lbs in lenses, I just want to take some shots" lens) and I'm guessing you're going to run into some of the same issues I have. The 18-280 has an even larger zoom range but the 'qualities' should be similar.

-At the extreme ends of the focal range, the lens is very soft. It's better to stay towards the middle when you can
-At the far end, it can be difficult for AF to find focus, just because it is at 6.3. Most cameras require at least 5.6 minimum. It will still focus, but it might take a little extra time.
-Watch out for lens creep. What I mean by this is the tendancy for the lens to zoom itself in or out. With such a long lens, it's pretty common.

Those superzooms aren't bad lenses, per se, but they certainly have their drawbacks. If that's your only lens, just learn to work around them. I use mine when I don't feel like carrying a lot of gear, but I might need the range (common where I live).


----------



## gsgary (Mar 19, 2010)

CAG76 said:


> Thanks so much!  You all really helped!  The last two replies really shed some light on the situation.  I think it's true that this lens is not good for action shots.  I will have to get another lens later.  I was hoping to use it at a basketball game, but, wow, I doubt it will work well at all.  Especially indoors where there's not much light. No sunlight.  Maybe I'll have a new lens by the time Moto GP comes to Indy in August.




You have no chance what so ever of getting good basketball shots with that lens, can you post some that you took that were 50/50 probably too slow a shutter speed


----------

