# What do you think of the new Tamron 17-270 VR?



## TwoRails (Dec 13, 2008)

I've seen the ads, and read a favorable review in Popular Photography, and it seems like a nice lens.  

Anybody familiar with this one?  It sure seems like it would fit my needs if it's a decent lens.


----------



## Drake (Dec 14, 2008)

I don't know about the 17-270, but there's a review of the Tamron 18-270 on dpreview, and it seems to be pretty sharp for lens this versatile. Don't expect miracles though.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 14, 2008)

Dooh!  That was a typo on my part...  I was referring to the new 18-270.


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 14, 2008)

I have been thinking really hard on getting it for my only lens to carry on my travel D40x.  I actually stopped in my local camera store.  There were not at all interested in helping me.  They didn't even mention they had the older lens in stock (saw it on the shelf).  I was pretty turned off by them.  When I said D40 I think they thought I was trying to find something really cheap.  I actually had $600 cash on me ready to go. I asked them if they were going to get it.  Their reply was only thing we can get is in the brochure (the Tamron leaflet on the counter).  And I think at least 1 of the people there was the owner or at least a manager.  Was really turned off by them.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 14, 2008)

I can't stand bad attitudes like that; customer service seems to get worse by the day...


----------



## Dao (Dec 14, 2008)

I will say it really comes down to what do you want to use this lens for and what your expectation on it.

If you want to use it as a vacation lens in the way that you want to travel as light as possible, or you really do not want to change lens at all, I will say it is not a bad choice from what I read.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 14, 2008)

"Vacation lens" would be a good way to put it, but mostly for in-town.  I don't get to go shooting very often so when I go out for errands, and the like, I grab a camera just in case I find something I want to shoot.  That means that most often I grab my Sony H9 point-n-shoot for it's great range (something like 28-465 eq) and it's IS.    And I pretty much need IS.

I was (still am, I guess) also thinking of the  Nikon 70-300 for it's VR but then I'd still need to grab two lenses in most cases.  I already have a Sigma 70-300 but without VR so I don't use it that much.

One other thing that attracts me to the Tamron is it's focus distance of about 20" in all of it's zoom range.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 15, 2008)

Well for the most part it's comparable to the 18-200 from Nikon a lens that I am using currently. To tell you the truth I can't wait to get back home and use my other lenses again. This lens has notable image problems, and I expect the same from the Tamron which edges out slightly in sharpness at the wide angles but loses in terms of CA and vignetting. I can also only hope that the build of the Tamron is better than the Nikon which suffers focus creep problems.

I'm happy that I am not carrying three lenses with me through Europe at the moment, instead just the superzoom and a macro, but on the flip side if I weren't travelling I wouldn't consider this lens over another in my home town.

Even at home when it comes to "errands" I still often carry around the right lens for the job and leave the others at home or in the car. Such as at sports I'll rarely carry a wide angle and take only a telefoto. But it all really ultimately depends on how much you need the versatility.


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 15, 2008)

TwoRails said:


> I can't stand bad attitudes like that; customer service seems to get worse by the day...


 

I was really dumfounded by their attitueds. Really made me want to go home. Grab both my D300's, and my 300 f2.8 and go back. And say hey does this qualify me to get some help. Although I have not looked, I think they may be the only real camera store in the area. Could be lack of compitition thing. They were not snotty, just no effort to sell something. They didn't even mention a similar lens by anyone else. No attempt at all. 

I am new to the area so of course I have not shopped there yet. I was really disapointed. I knew their price was going to be higher than online. But I was willing to pay it. They have lost that chance from now on!


----------



## shivaswrath (Dec 15, 2008)

what's funny about the concept about "vacation lenses" is that when i'm on vacation, I'd rather carry better lenses in order to capture those unmistakably perfect moments.

I'm no pro, and I would say I'm an avid hobbyist, so I might be an exception, but still. . .I shot with a Nikon 12-24 recently (after having carried the 14-24 around Paris for 10 days on my last vacation!), and I was THOROUGHLY disappointed with the image results in comparison. . .for me, I'd rather carry a couple of fast prime's, my biggie 14-24, and a mid-zoom than an all in one lens like the tamron. . .


----------



## photogmatt (Dec 18, 2008)

Garbz said:


> I can also only hope that the build of the Tamron is better than the Nikon which suffers focus creep problems.



Sorry to say, but the Tamron has creep issues. It's got a lock, but that does little to prevent it from creeping if it's hovering over or under a subject on a tripod. I don't own it, but I did play with it a bit at the photo expo this year. It's also not very fluid when zooming, another disappointment. 

That withstanding, I would still think about it for a walk around lens, you get over 300mm with the 1.5x factor and still a decent wide angle. It does macro too but I don't think it's 1:1. For the price and range I don't think anything else compares.


----------



## elemental (Dec 18, 2008)

benhasajeep said:


> I was really dumfounded by their attitueds. Really made me want to go home. Grab both my D300's, and my 300 f2.8 and go back. And say hey does this qualify me to get some help. Although I have not looked, I think they may be the only real camera store in the area. Could be lack of compitition thing. They were not snotty, just no effort to sell something. They didn't even mention a similar lens by anyone else. No attempt at all.
> 
> I am new to the area so of course I have not shopped there yet. I was really disapointed. I knew their price was going to be higher than online. But I was willing to pay it. They have lost that chance from now on!



This is why I shop online. More correctly, this is why I don't feel guilty about shopping online. We have a Ritz (which is a joke of course) and a "pro" shop where you only get decent help if you're been doing weddings since 1915. I really only go there for the expired film bin.


----------



## Hobbes (Dec 18, 2008)

TwoRails said:


> I can't stand bad attitudes like that; customer service seems to get worse by the day...



Well maybe they are a bunch of pro-photographers so you shouldn't expect them to be polite or helpful  jk. Seriously though before I walked into a couple of the few camera stores in Stockholm, Sweden I actually expected the employees there to be a bunch of arrogant narcissists but I was surprised when they helped me and gave me advice.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 19, 2008)

We got one at the store, it's a piece of junk.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 19, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Well for the most part it's comparable to the 18-200 from Nikon a lens that I am using currently. To tell you the truth I can't wait to get back home and use my other lenses again. This lens has notable image problems, and I expect the same from the Tamron which edges out slightly in sharpness at the wide angles but loses in terms of CA and vignetting. I can also only hope that the build of the Tamron is better than the Nikon which suffers focus creep problems. ...


I'm learning everyday.  And I find I am still making too many assumptions about things.  One assumption is/was that 'all' Nikon lenses would be good and not have any problems / troubles.  There I go thinking again...  I'm not sure what focus creep is so I'll guess that means it doesn't stay locked in autofocus?  Or is that something that also happens in manual mode?  Sorry if this is another dumb question, but I don't know what 'CA' is.  I Googled but didn't find anything.



photogmatt said:


> Sorry to say, but the Tamron has creep issues. It's got a lock, but that does little to prevent it from creeping if it's hovering over or under a subject on a tripod. I don't own it, but I did play with it a bit at the photo expo this year. It's also not very fluid when zooming, another disappointment.
> 
> That withstanding, I would still think about it for a walk around lens, you get over 300mm with the 1.5x factor and still a decent wide angle. It does macro too but I don't think it's 1:1. For the price and range I don't think anything else compares.


I've read at least two different specs on the macro part.  One is 1:2x, and the other is 1:3x.




elemental said:


> This is why I shop online. More correctly, this is why I don't feel guilty about shopping online. We have a Ritz (which is a joke of course) and a "pro" shop where you only get decent help if you're been doing weddings since 1915. I really only go there for the expired film bin.


We have only a Ritz in our little area, which I rarely go to.  Heck, our local Best Buy has more stuff than they do!!



Sw1tchFX said:


> We got one at the store, it's a piece of junk.


As compared to what?  I'm still a point-n-shooter so I don't know if you mean 'junk' compared to a P&S, or junk to a $1,400 lens..??


----------



## rgfergie (Jan 27, 2010)

TwoRails said:


> I've seen the ads, and read a favorable review in Popular Photography, and it seems like a nice lens.
> 
> Anybody familiar with this one?  It sure seems like it would fit my needs if it's a decent lens.



I've had this lens in use for approximately 6 months.  I can honestly say I got more than I expected from this lens.  All super zooms have their drawbacks, however, unless your going to print your pictures poster size or larger I challenge even the most discriminating judge to pick out enough flaws to cause concern with the results.  Even the larger posters etc taken at F11 to F16 I consider almost flawless. 

Those that use this forum to compare the pictures they get using their prime lenses compared to any super zoom should reconsider what the original question was.....what do you think of?????, not , lets compare primes to super zooms. Why bother to comment at all if that is what your here to do. 

Lets stick to the question and comment regarding same.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 27, 2010)

If it's at all like the Sigma 18-250 HSM OS you'll be very pleased.


----------



## Dao (Jan 27, 2010)

OP may already bought the lens and use it for awhile since he/she started this thread over 1 year ago.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 27, 2010)

FNG


----------



## shadowlands (Jan 27, 2010)

I own the Nikon 18-200 VR and love it!!!
Wouldn't let it go for anything...


----------



## mikeyb79 (Feb 18, 2012)

I know that this is an old thread, but I have to say that I'm really unimpressed with the lens. Very fuzzy even at f/11 and f/16 and particualary f/22 and above. I've recently gone over to the sigma range, as long as you get the DG or DC they are much better. You can't really do a good print with this lens, however if all you want is a web gallery then go for it.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 18, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> We got one at the store, it's a piece of junk.



This made me smile!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

benhasajeep said:


> I have been thinking really hard on getting it for my only lens to carry on my travel D40x.  I actually stopped in my local camera store.  There were not at all interested in helping me.  They didn't even mention they had the older lens in stock (saw it on the shelf).  I was pretty turned off by them.  When I said D40 I think they thought I was trying to find something really cheap.  I actually had $600 cash on me ready to go. I asked them if they were going to get it.  Their reply was only thing we can get is in the brochure (the Tamron leaflet on the counter).  And I think at least 1 of the people there was the owner or at least a manager.  Was really turned off by them.



BHPHOTO.com


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

mikeyb79 said:


> I know that this is an old thread, but I have to say tha*t I'm really unimpressed with the lens*. Very fuzzy even at f/11 and f/16 and particualary f/22 and above. I've recently gone over to the sigma range, as long as you get the DG or DC they are much better. You can't really do a good print with this lens, however if all you want is a web gallery then go for it.



Call Sanford & Son, they may come haul that lens off for you


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 18, 2012)

mikeyb79 said:


> I know that this is an old thread, but I have to say that I'm really unimpressed with the lens. Very fuzzy even at f/11 and f/16 and particualary f/22 and above. I've recently gone over to the sigma range, as long as you get the DG or DC they are much better. You can't really do a good print with this lens, however if all you want is a web gallery then go for it.


Fuzzy at f/22 and above? You don't say...

that describes just about any lens on the 135 format

It's a garbage lens, what do you expect for a 15x zoom range?


----------

