# Nikon D90 and Tamron 18-270



## basser

Has anyone used the Tamron 18-270 lens with the D90? Some literature says the D90 is "full frame" and I was told the 18-270 is not compatible with a full frame digital.


----------



## benhasajeep

D90 is a crop sensor.  1.5x

I am interested in the lens, for a travel lens.  Have not seen any hands on reports from anyone yet.


----------



## epp_b

I don't what you read, but the D90 is not a full frame / FX / 35mm frame camera.  It is an APS-C 1.5x cropped frame.  The 18-270 will cover the whole sensor just fine.


----------



## anubis404

The D90 is not full format. You're getting it confused with the D700.

The 18-270 looks interesting although any lens with that kind of zoom range I don't trust.


----------



## basser

Thanks to all. I think I'll get the 18-270 and see how it works. Will let you know what I think.


----------



## AlexColeman

Don't get the lens, it is awful quality with horrendous optics. Get a good zoom like the 16-85, it is phenomenal.


----------



## TwoRails

AlexColeman said:


> Don't get the lens, it is awful quality with horrendous optics. Get a good zoom like the 16-85, it is phenomenal.


Just curious, but where did you get that info?  A recent Popular Photography review states IQ is pretty decent.


----------



## JerryPH

If you do a google, your answers will be there.  It is a very mediocre lens... but then again most super zooms are at best compromise lenses.

This lens suffers from:
- lost image quality at the wide-angle and telephoto settings. 
- At 18 mm the image has a softening in the lower-left corner. 
- suffers from some chromatic aberration
- not a fixed aperture lens

...and other things.

Google is your friend... or on this case, your enemy... lol


----------



## TwoRails

Actually, I did Google after reading the review in Pop Photo but most of what was posted was press release regurgitation.  I did find a proverbial ton of other photo site posts talking about the lens.  Seems the Canon users of the lens like it and the Nikon version is reported as buggy.  Don't know why a mount would make a difference...


----------



## JerryPH

It doesn't normally... some just have different expectations or don't get too aggressive with their tests.

Logic dictates that a superzoom will NEVER have the same quality as a zoom or even less than a prime.  Doesn't make it a bad lens... just not a very good one on the overall scale of things.


----------



## passerby

basser said:


> Thanks to all. I think I'll get the 18-270 and see how it works. Will let you know what I think.


 
Good on you mate. Please post us few pictures from the widest side to the longest side and everything in between. I am so anxious to see.


----------



## AlexColeman

JerryPH said:


> If you do a google, your answers will be there.  It is a very mediocre lens... but then again most super zooms are at best compromise lenses.
> 
> This lens suffers from:
> - lost image quality at the wide-angle and telephoto settings.
> - At 18 mm the image has a softening in the lower-left corner.
> - suffers from some chromatic aberration
> - not a fixed aperture lens
> 
> ...and other things.
> 
> Google is your friend... or on this case, your enemy... lol



Just a bad lens, what do you expect from something that covers that zoom range? When it is replete with distortion CA and softness, why would you get it?


----------



## basser

Thanks all, but now I'm concerned. I was looking for a lens that could cover a range that wouldn't require me to carry two lens or a camera bag on short trips. Figured this one would fit the bill.


----------



## epp_b

> A recent Popular Photography review states IQ is pretty decent.


What, you think they're going to bite the hand that feeds them?



> Thanks all, but now I'm concerned. I was looking for a lens that could cover a range that wouldn't require me to carry two lens or a camera bag on short trips. Figured this one would fit the bill.


You, my friend, are looking for a lens using Magic (TM) technology 

When you buy a lens for the convenience of a massive focal range, you are going to make sacrifices in other areas.  From what I've read, the Nikon 18-200, while more expensive, is probably the best compromise in terms of convenience and image quality.  I have the 18-55 and 55-200.  Together, they cover pretty much all the range I'll ever need.  If you need to get closer, then get closer.  The difference between 200 and 270 is only 36%.


----------



## passerby

basser said:


> Thanks all, but now I'm concerned. I was looking for a lens that could cover a range that wouldn't require me to carry two lens or a camera bag on short trips. Figured this one would fit the bill.


 
Ask the vendor if they allow you to return the lens if you find it not satisfactory to your criteria. If yes than do *handhold outdoor* test quickly using 18mm to start with than 28 than 50 than 70 etc until 270, and shooting the same subject. In that test you use 2 aperture settings per shot.  The widest opening and the f8 or f11. Than you scrutinized those pictures in your computer. 

Regardless of what we all have said here, you will decide if the lens is for you. But if you don't want to go through that way than the Nikon 18-200 is proven as decent lens.


----------



## TwoRails

epp_b said:


> What, you think they're going to bite the hand that feeds them? ...


Then why believe any review?  Shooting test / resolution charts can be easily verified, yes?


----------



## JerryPH

I don't think it such a terrible thing to:

- talk to people that own this lens
- ask them to show pics that are the same at different apertures
- read the reviews... don't stop at one, read as many as you can and look for consistency (ie: the 18-50 Sigma DC EX HSM was part of a side-by-side shoot-out with it's two highest competitors by 3 different magazines in the UK and USA... the results were identical 3 times).
- sure, do focus chart tests for focus accuracy
- rent the lens, see it for yourself how it works
- make sure you purchase from reputable vendors who will permit you to take it back if you really are unsatisfied with the lens

Before I bought the Sigma 18-50 mentioned above, I spent about $75 in long distance phone calls talking to people who owned this lens personally to get a feel of how it really was.  Often people say one thing on the forums and totally another when really conversing one on one. No one had anything negatve to tell me about this lens.  That meant a lot in my eyes in conjunction to everything else.


----------



## normb

Hi,

I just put a Tamron 18-270 on my D90. The lens is actually designed for the smaller DX type sensors like on the D90. It will show vignetting on a full sensor cameras like the D3. I can tell you after a week of playing around with it, it's really incredible. I've never had and image stabilization type lens and it's a real jaw dropper to be able to take a 400 mm (corrected for sensor size) telephoto shot at 1/100/sec and f6.3 offhand without a tripod and have it come out clear and sharp. 
Re the lens; read the reviews. All zoom lenses have some compromise in quality, speed or focus compared to prime lenses, but there is no real significant flaw in the Tamron I can find. The only limitation I can think of is slow autofocus compared with my Nikon zooms, but I'm not taking pics of fast moving subjects with it. It weighs a little over a pound, so the D90 is a bit unbalanced, but not seriously so. Really quite an amazing piece of technology and a good all round lens for the D90. Couple it with a 50mm AF f1.8 or 1.4 Nikkor prime that you can slip in your pocket and you've got a great easy carry around system for outdoors and low light.


----------



## normb

basser said:


> Has anyone used the Tamron 18-270 lens with the D90? Some literature says the D90 is "full frame" and I was told the 18-270 is not compatible with a full frame digital.


Ok, I've played around with this Tamron 18-270 lens enough (a couple of weeks) to say it is really remarkable. Here are a couple of pics. The first is of a Pepto bottle taken with a D90 with the lens fully cranked out to 270 f6.3 at 1/13 sec. That's 1/13 sec handheld! Focus is on the top part of the label. Both photos have no post processing and the Pepto was taken in natural light. If I'd have tried this with a regular telephopo the pic would be just a smear. The second photo was at 270mm flashed; also handheld. Pics taken at various lengths in natural and tungsten light are clear, sharp and colorful. 
I assume by other comments, I got a good lens. No hitch in the tele slider, no tele creep (at least not yet), and no really significant distortion or lens flare. Sharp at all lengths. I can't compare it to The nikon or Sigma IS lenses, but I am really pleased with the Tamron.

http://home.comcast.net/~n.birndorf//pepto 270.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~n.birndorf/Knives.jpg


----------



## grafxman

The Sigma 18-250mm may be a better choice. A quick check at amazon shows it was liked more by the users than the Tamron.


----------



## normb

grafxman said:


> The Sigma 18-250mm may be a better choice. A quick check at amazon shows it was liked more by the users than the Tamron.


Nothing against Sigma glass. I have a couple of Sigma lenses and they are great. I read the reviews of the three superzoom contenders; Nikon VR, Sigma OS and the Tamron VC. All were favorable to one or the other even in head-to head comparisons. Some user reports favored one over the other, but the bottom line is that all are reported as very good considering their limitations as superzooms. I chose the Tamron for price, (equal to the Sigma and much less than the Nikon), longer zoom range, Stabilization at all camera angles, and  significantly lighter weight than the Sigma. 
Not speaking for the other lenses, I can't imagine anything much better than the Tamron I got. I am still amazed at being able to take a sharp clear picture without distortion or color fringing at 415mm (sensor corrected) handheld at 1/13 of a second. For me, all arguments come down to that. Check sharpness at 1000x and the EXIF on the pics in the links I posted. If there are any other lenses that will behave like the Tamron, buy them if you like the brand or they test better on your camera body. This is my first Tamron lens. Anxiously waiting for summer to take more outdoor pics.
The original post asked if the Tamron will fit and function on a D90. Recap; yes.

Regards,

Norm


----------



## Boothy

Ive just returned the Tamron 18-270 vc for my Nikon D90. The lens is good, pictures were of good quality etc but I shoot rugby pictures and on the 2 matches I used the lens I had the auto focus freeze and had to switch the camera off / on to enable the function to work. when this happens you have lost the picture grrrrrr.
Also the auto focus was slow to lock on at times Ive now gone to the Nikon 18-200 vr II zoom lets see what happens next match 
for a £400.00 + lens I did not want to stay with the Tamron.
I have read other reviews that this fault comes up when the D90 is used ?


----------



## lucianon

Boothy said:


> Ive just returned the Tamron 18-270 vc for my Nikon D90. The lens is good, pictures were of good quality etc but I shoot rugby pictures and on the 2 matches I used the lens I had the auto focus freeze and had to switch the camera off / on to enable the function to work. when this happens you have lost the picture grrrrrr.
> Also the auto focus was slow to lock on at times Ive now gone to the Nikon 18-200 vr II zoom lets see what happens next match
> for a £400.00 + lens I did not want to stay with the Tamron.
> I have read other reviews that this fault comes up when the D90 is used ?


 
I have perhaps the same problem here with this lens and a D90. Quite frequently, maybe a couple of times per day, the lens lose completely its capability to auto-focus. The auto-focus system freezes completely, it doesn't neither try to focus at all. What I have to do is to turn the camera off then on and then cross my fingers. 

I have tried also to clean the contacts very accurately (as suggested by other people on some reviews), the problem seems to disappear for a few days, but it finally returns quickly.

I have lost several important shots because of this issue, and I'm now going to trash this lens. I'm not trying to send the lens for repairing, I'm not interested in such unrealible things.

Will try Nikon 18-200.


----------



## KmH

The Nikon may be more reliable but it is one of Nikon's worst lens values, IMO.

All of the super zooms (more than a 10x focal length range) have image quality issues of one type or another because so many design compromises have to be made to get that much zoom range out of a single lens.

For people who value convenience (don't need to carry/swap out other lenses) over image quality a super zoom is the way to go.

DPReview on the Nikon 18-200:



> *Overall conclusion*
> 
> Just occasionally, the old cliches are still the best, and with the 18-200mm VR the phrase 'jack of all trades, master of none' springs immediately to mind. It's a lens which delivers somewhat flawed results over its entire zoom range; where it's sharp, it has heavy distortion, and when that distortion comes under control at the long end, it loses sharpness..........


----------



## lucianon

KmH said:


> All of the super zooms (more than a 10x focal length range) have image quality issues of one type or another because so many design compromises have to be made to get that much zoom range out of a single lens.


 
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I am aware about these limits, indeed I'm not looking for the highest quality lens, but just for a... "working" lens. Today with Tamron I had the issue again, the lens was completely "frozen" and it was impossible to get pictures, I had to switch the camera ON and OFF several times before having it working again. I will not try to have it repaired, as I have read about many people having the same problem.


----------

