I don’t know my version is awesome. It’s takes really sharp and clean pictures. It’s a very versatile lens that does a lot. For what it does, it’s not to big or heavy of a lens and it’s fun if you are traveling on foot most of the day and don’t want many lenses to carry around. One camera, Tamron 18-300mm lens can do so produce so much different shot, especially on a Fuji XT5. I love the Tamron 18-300mm. I take this lens and one good wide and fast lens for night pictures on my travels and I’m set.
I have been using Tamron 18-300 on Sony A7R3 for a few months and really enjoy using it overall. The weakness of this lens seems to be not performing very well in a low-light situation. That's what I found a key weakness of this lens.
I expect a lens like this not to be at its best in low light ... It is all the rest that didn't convince me, and this is probably why I think I had bad copy
You’re not alone. My first copy of this lens I bought used from KEH. It almost never took sharp photos, even mounted on a tripod. I think it was a faulty copy. I think I watched everyone’s review on it at least 3 times and I never got the same results. So I sold it. Then after a couple months I just missed it so much for the type of travel photography I do and ended up buying brand new from B&H. This new copy is great. Even at 300mm, it sharpens up like crazy at f/10 specifically (weird I know). The only drawback is that the IBIS at focal lengths above ~120mm just sucks. Even on my X-S20 I will occasionally get a photo that has motion blur despite using 1/2*focal length shutter speed. I think the IBIS and OIS just don’t sync up sometimes. Otherwise it’s a great travel lens
I got this for my A6700 to fill the role that my Rx10m3 had - great travel camera. It is not as good as my Tamron 50-400mm on my A7 m4, but it is still pretty sharp. At "fit-to-screen" on a large monitor my shot of a navy ship on my A6700 looks better than the one from the A7m4. If you go 1:1 the full frame lens resolves more detail. On small birds and animals in poor light, The Tamron 18-300 was quite acceptable especially after post. Not as good as full-frame but that is not the fault of the lens. You must have gotten a bad copy or you live by pixel-peeping.
I'm leaning towards the bad copy. I'm not a pixel peeper, and a lens like this has to be a compromise. But this one went way below my expectations and since most of the people think differently... It must have been my copy
I bought this lens a few months ago. After running it on my Sony A6700 my experience is completely different. The lens is super sharp. At 250-300 range it looses some contrast and sharpness, but these are easily recoverable in Lightroom. It is a hefty lens for an APSC but the range and IQ are spot on.
That's why I say my copy may have been sub par. To be honest I must say the frustration came more on the 40mp sensor that the 26, so on the A6700 having a lower megapixel sensor helps. But again, I think my copy was bad
I know this video is a year old, but thank you for making it. I was about to purchase one, and then i came across this honest video. So i will spend more time looking and figuring out what i need for my little a6000, and just for random trips
Excellent review. I had a similar issue with my Fuji 70-300. All reviews were praising this lens but mine was as flat as a pancake. I sent it back to Fuji under warranty and they carried out a complete factory re-calibration. The lens is now much better but still dodgy at 300mm. Luca, you are right! I bought the lens for what it could achieve at the highest focal length and was expecting too much!
Watch some other reviews before you make a decision. I'm in the market and have watched multiple reviews and this is the only one that is so critical of image quality. Most if not all have reported very good sharpness except for some softening it the corners. I suspect Luca got a bad copy.
@@j16m02 I know for sure one thing - there is no magic lens that can do it all :) you got to compromise somewhere, and even if I'd have the perfect copy of this lens, it wouldn't give me the crisp images I want. I'm sure the lens will provide good images, but so can my phone... I'm buying a lens to have better than good images. At 300 I'd want to photograph animals, and I'd like to get as much detail as possible, especially when deep cropping - and I know, it won't give me this detail (Because this is not the only review I've watched, and not the only lens I "studied"). There's a reason why some optical ranges are decoupled, if the design won't compromise on quality. Tamron really nailed it with this do it all lens, and it surely can suit travelers who want to save on weight - But I'm not willing to compromise on quality :) Eventually, it is all about personal preference. BTW - still didn't get any telephoto lens, because the non-compromise lenses cost a lot! :D though I did get a macro
Just to clarify, I think I may have gotten a bad copy, and I mentioned that in my review. I should've probably given it another try, but I didn't feel like doing it
I had a feeling this lens would not satisfy you Luca! As an owner of this lens I can understand your criticism. I've owned both the 16-80 and 70-300 prior and those are great, with the 70-300 being stellar. There are a number of issues I have with this lens. I get periodic 'blackouts' when zooming, a bit annoying and will take this up with Tamron. Sometimes the OIS doesn't quite work especially noticeable on the telephoto range, and I need to quickly powercycle the lens. Focus is also not as good as the Fujifilm. Global image quality is not as good either. However, I have been able to get many great shots with this lens, even at night and at the telephoto range. It can actually be quite sharp in the center, and I know Dustin Abbott did a fair review of this lens and he is quite critical as you are. So perhaps there is some copy variations. In a moon test at 300mm I got quite excellent results that were actually quite close to the XF70-300mm. The Tamron is of course worse in the corners at its longest range whereas the 70-300mm holds up throughout the range. The 16-80 I felt was good but the F4 was its limitation. At that point, the Tamron isn't too far behind, plus gives you that extra reach. When it comes to a zoom, I'm definitely willing to make compromises, quite a bit, just to have an all-in-one tool. The focal range is truly the strength here and it can take great photos. I can work with or around the compromises. But I'm still confident enough in this lens that I could take it solely with me on an excursion and be creative with it. Or bring along another prime of your choice and know you have most situations covered. I also compared this with some superzoom bridge cameras. In that regard it is comparable and in some cases worse than Lumix FZ1000 or FZ300 (even at 12mb)! I'm sure the RX10 series actually would even be better. But the Tamron 18-300 is for APC-S and has a manual zoom action So yes, not a perfect lens. But still a good tool providing you aren't pixel peeping. Going to hold on to it, as I'm tired of looking for the ideal zoom, just going to use what I have. I may have kept my 70-300 though had I known of some of these issues, but the shorter focal lengths have come in handy many times.
Thank you for taking the time to write what you think. I hope my lens was a bad sample, I really do. But since I'm paying with my own money, I can't keep trying. For all the rest, I perfectly understand what you say, and that would have been my main reason to have this lens. I was ready for mediocrity if that makes sense. But I wasn't ready for going below that, and the feeling of not knowing whether I was gonna get a decent image quality or not would have killed my will to shoot... And this is exactly what happened when I took it for a hike with the X-H2... I was reviewing shots and I was getting frustrated. I wasn't willing to put up with that. That being said, if yours is better, I'd strongly recommended to hold on tight to it, as it is definitely a convenient lens
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Hi Luca, I just learned that Tamron put out some new firmware. I updated from 2.0 to version 3.0 for my 18-300. It fixed some issues I was having including the intermittent blackout when zooming too fast. Apparently, some image stabilization issues have been ironed out as well. So good to see and made my morning. Do you recall what version your was?
To be honest I didn't check, and I already prepared the package. See what I expect from a firmware upgrade is solving minor issues, and the image quality i was getting even with manual focus and stabilization off wasn't acceptable and I don't think it could change with a firmware upgrade
This lens interests me, like many bridge cameras do.. but I have my doubts. I am not particularly a wildlife photographer, or a street photographer. (pretty much a portrait and art guy) I like the idea of going and taking great wildlife photos but, i have used the XF 100-400 and I don't want to carry it, so the 70-300 and the tamron 18-300 are appealing especially if you pair a Xt30 with the tamron, the kit costs the same as a 1" Sony RX10. I shoot mostly primes (well mostly 1 prime) although I have added the sigma 56 F/1.4 to the mix and that is a fantastic lens for my needs. I have the original 10-24 F/4 which i use mostly for video and the 16-80 F/4. I've never been 100% happy with the 16-80 for photos. Kind of wish the 16-80 did not have zoom creep and had a lock as gravity or movement changes the focal length so easy, making it unusable on a gimble (if the 18-120 was an F/2.8 i'd buy in a heartbeat) but it is solid for video on a tripod. Now back on topic, I am going to sit and wait, and see what is released, then if nothing interests me, I may just get the 70-300, especially if an ideal bridge camera is not released
I can only fully agree with the review. My lens was also extremely blurry. I think TAMRON has a big problem with quality control. Other testers had similar problems at first and then got a new lens from TAMRON which was then fine.
The issue is... If have to buy it again, I don't want to shoot in the dark. I'd love to give it a try again, but not if I can't test it for myself first
I bought this 18-300mm Tamron lens. My copy was legit shockingly sharp in the middle from about 25 to 300mm. But it was weaker at the 18mm end. The middle ok, but the edges dropped off too much for me. Just not crispy... At the long end, you can still see sharpness drop off too much towards the corners. My Fuji also didn't communicate well with it despite the latest firmwares... shot up the ISO too much, some focus misses. I ended up having to return the lens. My copy probably was much better than most but it was still not good enough for me. The weird thing is that this 18-300mm Tamron lens is a newer design than my Tamron 28-200mm for Sony... yet the latter was significantly better, corners included. Tamron needs to try again and aim for an APSC 16-120mm f/5.6-8 lens. That one would be my dream, small and light... for good light hiking uses.
18-300 is a much bigger range compared to 28-200, it makes sense the 28-200 may be better. However, there's plenty of users that swear their 18-300 is great. It may be sample dependent.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography I don't think the vibration control in the Tamron seems to do much though on the FUJI system, I set IS Mode to continuous when using the lens just so it's not shaking so much when I'm composing the photo and looking through EVF, otherwise it looks shaky, especially at the long end and is quite annoying ....
Thanks for making this video Luca, I also have the FUJI 18-80 and the FUJI 70-300 so you were the perfect reviewer. My FUJI 70-300 exceeded my expectation so many times, I think i'll will take something a lot more special to kick him out! But its always interesting to see what new things are ocming out. Thanks again.
The 70-300 is excellent. Try both if you have a chance though. The Tamron 18-300 and 17-70 both got new firmwares recently that solved some issues I was having.
I'm so sad you had this experience. I was similarly disappointed with Sony 18-135 for my A6000, which had front focus issue and I had to return it. After that I recently stumbled upon the Tamron 18-300 and got that, and it surpassed my expectations. The only downside is weak low-light autofocus performance. I noticed in the comments you mention it might have been a bad copy and as I found out myself, this does sometimes happen.
It is normal that a super zoom lens loses compared to a more reasonable zooming range lens, even if cheap. At the end of the day it's a game of trade offs
I just ordered this lens Used for 499-00 US.. Sadly I saw your review after I pulled the trigger. Let's see how I like it... I think I may go for the Xf 50-140 just spend the money not as much reach but Quality. Im shooting Xpro2 and Xt4.. Will let you know.
I recieved this lens and and will be testing out the next few weeks. Upon arrival I like the build quality and the shots I've taken are sharp enough for me at this point.
I truly saw another video which reviewed similar lens and his photos and videos at all the focal lengths were pretty good and shar. Probably you should let the company check the lens for you.
Maybe you got a bad batch? I love mine. At 300mm its pretty freaking sharp. I have the tamron 17-70, Sigma 18-50 and the sony 18-135. Honestly, i can't tell the difference without absolutely pixel peeping. Even then, the range is so much more its worth it. Im on the sony 6400. Im not a pro, im just a dad. I dont think regular people have the same experience or expectations as you(?) Its not a pro lens right? Its great for most things expect maybe a professional shoot?
I'm pretty sure I got a bad sample. This lens isn't a pro oriented lens, I didn't expect it to be like that. Again, I'm pretty sure I got a bad one and I'm happy to hear most of the users are happy with it
I had nothing but problems with this Tamron Lens on my Sony 6700. I kept on having an error focusing where the camera would not focus and I had to take the battery out and reset it
I really want to love this lens, but I agree completely it really struggles when at a long focal length, the pictures are just not sharp and are blurred. It's quite disappointing, I am thinking of trading it in to get the 70-300.
Well, with the Tamron copy I had the difference in image quality between the two lenses is beyond huge. To me it's a no brainier, the 70-300 is an excellent lens
I sold mine after a few months of ownership. It was objectively a versatile lens. But it didn't feel very capable. I didn't feel like it inspired my to create art.
I have this lens and find it as sharp as my son's Fuji 70-300 at 200-300mm at f8. Never got any results like this video. Really think he got a bad copy. We shoot surfing and really don't use these lens for anything else. Wide open the Fuji lens is sharper. The Tamron zoom is too stiff to recommend for serious video. I use the Fuji for video. If you are just doing photography in good light, the Tamron is a bargain but forget it for video.
@@gillyb44 hi! How to test it with X-T3 if I'll be buying it (not online)? Seems that X-T3 's sensor barely shows the true results because of it's resolution.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography BTW, did you've tested 200-300 range in different conditions? I've read that some places (like high mountains) can introduce non-sharp results just by their nature. About that "magical Sony version results" I just think that Sony cameras use sharpen algorithms on fly as a trick to "be a legend" among usual "non-geek" users.
I tested it in several environments, and unfortunately nothing changed. Of course warm air can play it's role in bad results at 300mm at infinity or long distances, but I was getting similar results even with fairly close subjects
A superbly offered review! Thank you SO much. I am "just like you" but not as professional. Still, I already own great lenses for the wide to mid focal lengths. I'll resign myself to haul a second lens (in my bicycle pannier) for catching wildlife; i.e., 70-300mm or similar for an APS-C camera. Yes, sharpness trumps all other virtues, in a lens! Your review is unique for its frankness... in my experience. All the other reviews suppressed your fair complaint on "distal acuity." Bravo. And your English is superb as well.
Hey man thanks for the review. Like you, I also wish that this is the one lens to rull all :) I do streetphotography with 85mm viltrox 1.8 but for travelling as well as some subjects further away this lens sounds like a gold mine. So far all reviews I read are conflicting which leads me to think that the quality of each lens is different. This makes it even a harder decision to make a purchase
I know, it sucks. At least with Amazon you can return it if it's not good. I'd like to test another copy for myself as well, I may end up pulling the trigger again in the future
Good to see you Luca, this is not going to be one of my long comments, this is just to let you know that I watched the video and to thank you for taking the time to make it. I’m sure that the Sigmas and Tamrons of today are much better than when I tried them many moons ago (they were really bad) but I prefer native lenses. Be well and stay safe.
I prefer native lenses as well, but I wanted to give it a try as sometimes I want to be faithful... It didn't go well this time, but next week's video will probably be (spoiler alert) on a completely different mood
I agree completely with this review. I have the Fuji 100-400 and the 16-55, and was hoping that the Tamron would be a good walk-around single lens lightweight compromise. But you hit it on the head - it's not capable of resolving even at 26MP on my X-S10, and I'm returning it. Pity because I also liked the look and feel and weight (and price!).
I bought this lens encouraged by positive reviews. However, I bought it not for photography but for filming. In my opinion, photography requires better quality lenses. The movie, however, is not so demanding. The focal length of 18-300mm covers my needs but the lens could be a little brighter, although 4.0. For me, the main downside of this lens is the hard working zoom. Sometimes I need to make a smooth approach or departure. Unfortunately, even follow focus doesn't help. The sprockets skip under the influence of high force. I haven't given up yet and am looking for a solution. :-) Regards
It's interesting, can it be a bad calibration case or just a "price" for such a wide range? I'm not an optical specialist, so i can't tell a good guess actually.
Great for someone to speak out .I was looking for an older Sony 18-135mm lens for travel . Wonder will it be worst for my A7cr 61mp to resolve? If anyone care for a comment.Thanks
I’m surprised this lens was soft for you. Dustin Abbot gave this lens a good review and was quite surprised with the sharpness of this lens. Perhaps this could be an issue of sample variation or quality control issues.
Is this mean I should just go with the Sony a7RV with Tamron 50-400 which is similar range but seem like this one has good performance? Any similar range EOF lens for Panasonic Lumix MFT?
I'm not expert in MFT lenses honestly. I would not be a good help. As for the 50-400, although long, it doesn't have the same wide angle range. This means that is not a universal lens like the 18-300 is supposed to be.
Same on Tamron 18-200mm Di III-A VC, absolutely worst sharpness. I have Tamron 70-300mm and it is perfectly sharp, this ASP-C lenses is hell. Sigma 18-50is perfect.
I am sure to say you made a very subjective conclusion without any objective comparison. I had sony 70-350 and Tamron 18-300 both and compare side by side the photos. Tamron is brightor if you realize the focal length, i can take macro as sharp as my Tamron 11-20, and brightor and sharp at 300mm than sony 70-350mm. Also Sony if at 350mm is difficult to take photo handheld anyway with my shaky hands. Anyway, i am very glad with my tamron 18-300mm, with 5 year warranty, and sold my sony 70-350mm already. It serves all my purpose unless i sometimes put on my Tamron 11-20 for the northern lights not long time ago, or my Tamrom 17-70 for very general city photo shootinh without any macro or long distance photographs.
I had the Sony 70-350 for a while after I posted this review... With my copy of the Tamron there was no comparison at all. The Sony was leaps and bounds above the tamron in sharpness
I am really disappointed to hear you say you don't like the 18 -300. I had an 18 - 270 many many years which is since broken and I was hoping that this would be the new solution but now I've heard too many reviews saying this is not very good. I am so disappointed. I really liked having the one size fits all lens for me.
I'd say this is too extreme. There are good third party lenses around. The Viltrox 13 and 85mm for example. The sigma primes seem to be good (although I haven't tried them yet) and the sigma 18-50 seems promising.
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
I don’t know my version is awesome. It’s takes really sharp and clean pictures. It’s a very versatile lens that does a lot. For what it does, it’s not to big or heavy of a lens and it’s fun if you are traveling on foot most of the day and don’t want many lenses to carry around. One camera, Tamron 18-300mm lens can do so produce so much different shot, especially on a Fuji XT5. I love the Tamron 18-300mm. I take this lens and one good wide and fast lens for night pictures on my travels and I’m set.
I'm sure mine was faulty, too many people share experiences like yours
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography yes, It’s takes really sharp and clean pictures at focal lengths above 100
I have been using Tamron 18-300 on Sony A7R3 for a few months and really enjoy using it overall. The weakness of this lens seems to be not performing very well in a low-light situation. That's what I found a key weakness of this lens.
I expect a lens like this not to be at its best in low light ... It is all the rest that didn't convince me, and this is probably why I think I had bad copy
You’re not alone. My first copy of this lens I bought used from KEH. It almost never took sharp photos, even mounted on a tripod. I think it was a faulty copy. I think I watched everyone’s review on it at least 3 times and I never got the same results.
So I sold it. Then after a couple months I just missed it so much for the type of travel photography I do and ended up buying brand new from B&H. This new copy is great. Even at 300mm, it sharpens up like crazy at f/10 specifically (weird I know). The only drawback is that the IBIS at focal lengths above ~120mm just sucks. Even on my X-S20 I will occasionally get a photo that has motion blur despite using 1/2*focal length shutter speed. I think the IBIS and OIS just don’t sync up sometimes. Otherwise it’s a great travel lens
I got this for my A6700 to fill the role that my Rx10m3 had - great travel camera. It is not as good as my Tamron 50-400mm on my A7 m4, but it is still pretty sharp. At "fit-to-screen" on a large monitor my shot of a navy ship on my A6700 looks better than the one from the A7m4. If you go 1:1 the full frame lens resolves more detail. On small birds and animals in poor light, The Tamron 18-300 was quite acceptable especially after post. Not as good as full-frame but that is not the fault of the lens. You must have gotten a bad copy or you live by pixel-peeping.
I'm leaning towards the bad copy. I'm not a pixel peeper, and a lens like this has to be a compromise. But this one went way below my expectations and since most of the people think differently... It must have been my copy
I bought this lens a few months ago. After running it on my Sony A6700 my experience is completely different. The lens is super sharp. At 250-300 range it looses some contrast and sharpness, but these are easily recoverable in Lightroom. It is a hefty lens for an APSC but the range and IQ are spot on.
That's why I say my copy may have been sub par. To be honest I must say the frustration came more on the 40mp sensor that the 26, so on the A6700 having a lower megapixel sensor helps.
But again, I think my copy was bad
I know this video is a year old, but thank you for making it. I was about to purchase one, and then i came across this honest video. So i will spend more time looking and figuring out what i need for my little a6000, and just for random trips
Consider that I may have gotten a bad copy, so don't take my video as the final word
I have the a6000 and I think this lens has absolutely great image quality.
Excellent review. I had a similar issue with my Fuji 70-300. All reviews were praising this lens but mine was as flat as a pancake. I sent it back to Fuji under warranty and they carried out a complete factory re-calibration. The lens is now much better but still dodgy at 300mm. Luca, you are right! I bought the lens for what it could achieve at the highest focal length and was expecting too much!
Thanks for sharing
You just saved me a lot of money, because I was in the same mindset as you.. I really wanted to love the lens. Thank you!
Watch some other reviews before you make a decision. I'm in the market and have watched multiple reviews and this is the only one that is so critical of image quality. Most if not all have reported very good sharpness except for some softening it the corners. I suspect Luca got a bad copy.
@@j16m02 I know for sure one thing - there is no magic lens that can do it all :) you got to compromise somewhere, and even if I'd have the perfect copy of this lens, it wouldn't give me the crisp images I want. I'm sure the lens will provide good images, but so can my phone... I'm buying a lens to have better than good images. At 300 I'd want to photograph animals, and I'd like to get as much detail as possible, especially when deep cropping - and I know, it won't give me this detail (Because this is not the only review I've watched, and not the only lens I "studied"). There's a reason why some optical ranges are decoupled, if the design won't compromise on quality.
Tamron really nailed it with this do it all lens, and it surely can suit travelers who want to save on weight - But I'm not willing to compromise on quality :)
Eventually, it is all about personal preference.
BTW - still didn't get any telephoto lens, because the non-compromise lenses cost a lot! :D though I did get a macro
Just to clarify, I think I may have gotten a bad copy, and I mentioned that in my review. I should've probably given it another try, but I didn't feel like doing it
I'm returning it too. Was pulling my hair out for two months...E-mount. Thanks for your observations, they match to the point.
Thanks for sharing
I had a feeling this lens would not satisfy you Luca! As an owner of this lens I can understand your criticism. I've owned both the 16-80 and 70-300 prior and those are great, with the 70-300 being stellar. There are a number of issues I have with this lens. I get periodic 'blackouts' when zooming, a bit annoying and will take this up with Tamron. Sometimes the OIS doesn't quite work especially noticeable on the telephoto range, and I need to quickly powercycle the lens. Focus is also not as good as the Fujifilm. Global image quality is not as good either. However, I have been able to get many great shots with this lens, even at night and at the telephoto range. It can actually be quite sharp in the center, and I know Dustin Abbott did a fair review of this lens and he is quite critical as you are. So perhaps there is some copy variations. In a moon test at 300mm I got quite excellent results that were actually quite close to the XF70-300mm. The Tamron is of course worse in the corners at its longest range whereas the 70-300mm holds up throughout the range. The 16-80 I felt was good but the F4 was its limitation. At that point, the Tamron isn't too far behind, plus gives you that extra reach.
When it comes to a zoom, I'm definitely willing to make compromises, quite a bit, just to have an all-in-one tool. The focal range is truly the strength here and it can take great photos. I can work with or around the compromises. But I'm still confident enough in this lens that I could take it solely with me on an excursion and be creative with it. Or bring along another prime of your choice and know you have most situations covered.
I also compared this with some superzoom bridge cameras. In that regard it is comparable and in some cases worse than Lumix FZ1000 or FZ300 (even at 12mb)! I'm sure the RX10 series actually would even be better. But the Tamron 18-300 is for APC-S and has a manual zoom action
So yes, not a perfect lens. But still a good tool providing you aren't pixel peeping. Going to hold on to it, as I'm tired of looking for the ideal zoom, just going to use what I have. I may have kept my 70-300 though had I known of some of these issues, but the shorter focal lengths have come in handy many times.
Thank you for taking the time to write what you think.
I hope my lens was a bad sample, I really do. But since I'm paying with my own money, I can't keep trying.
For all the rest, I perfectly understand what you say, and that would have been my main reason to have this lens. I was ready for mediocrity if that makes sense. But I wasn't ready for going below that, and the feeling of not knowing whether I was gonna get a decent image quality or not would have killed my will to shoot... And this is exactly what happened when I took it for a hike with the X-H2... I was reviewing shots and I was getting frustrated. I wasn't willing to put up with that.
That being said, if yours is better, I'd strongly recommended to hold on tight to it, as it is definitely a convenient lens
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Hi Luca, I just learned that Tamron put out some new firmware. I updated from 2.0 to version 3.0 for my 18-300. It fixed some issues I was having including the intermittent blackout when zooming too fast. Apparently, some image stabilization issues have been ironed out as well. So good to see and made my morning. Do you recall what version your was?
To be honest I didn't check, and I already prepared the package. See what I expect from a firmware upgrade is solving minor issues, and the image quality i was getting even with manual focus and stabilization off wasn't acceptable and I don't think it could change with a firmware upgrade
This lens interests me, like many bridge cameras do.. but I have my doubts.
I am not particularly a wildlife photographer, or a street photographer. (pretty much a portrait and art guy)
I like the idea of going and taking great wildlife photos but, i have used the XF 100-400 and I don't want to carry it, so the 70-300 and the tamron 18-300 are appealing especially if you pair a Xt30 with the tamron, the kit costs the same as a 1" Sony RX10.
I shoot mostly primes (well mostly 1 prime) although I have added the sigma 56 F/1.4 to the mix and that is a fantastic lens for my needs.
I have the original 10-24 F/4 which i use mostly for video and the 16-80 F/4. I've never been 100% happy with the 16-80 for photos.
Kind of wish the 16-80 did not have zoom creep and had a lock as gravity or movement changes the focal length so easy, making it unusable on a gimble (if the 18-120 was an F/2.8 i'd buy in a heartbeat) but it is solid for video on a tripod.
Now back on topic, I am going to sit and wait, and see what is released, then if nothing interests me, I may just get the 70-300, especially if an ideal bridge camera is not released
For wildlife get the 70-300, is better in both image quality and autofocus
Thank you. You just confirmed what I was thinking.
Again, my copy may have been a lemon... Try it if you can, and then decide
I can only fully agree with the review. My lens was also extremely blurry. I think TAMRON has a big problem with quality control. Other testers had similar problems at first and then got a new lens from TAMRON which was then fine.
The issue is... If have to buy it again, I don't want to shoot in the dark. I'd love to give it a try again, but not if I can't test it for myself first
I bought this 18-300mm Tamron lens. My copy was legit shockingly sharp in the middle from about 25 to 300mm. But it was weaker at the 18mm end. The middle ok, but the edges dropped off too much for me. Just not crispy... At the long end, you can still see sharpness drop off too much towards the corners. My Fuji also didn't communicate well with it despite the latest firmwares... shot up the ISO too much, some focus misses. I ended up having to return the lens. My copy probably was much better than most but it was still not good enough for me. The weird thing is that this 18-300mm Tamron lens is a newer design than my Tamron 28-200mm for Sony... yet the latter was significantly better, corners included. Tamron needs to try again and aim for an APSC 16-120mm f/5.6-8 lens. That one would be my dream, small and light... for good light hiking uses.
18-300 is a much bigger range compared to 28-200, it makes sense the 28-200 may be better. However, there's plenty of users that swear their 18-300 is great. It may be sample dependent.
On my X-T50 I honestly think the photos it produces in general for a long zoom are pretty sharp. I had the XF 70-300
Thanks for the feedback. It confirms the thought I had a bad sample
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography I don't think the vibration control in the Tamron seems to do much though on the FUJI system, I set IS Mode to continuous when using the lens just so it's not shaking so much when I'm composing the photo and looking through EVF, otherwise it looks shaky, especially at the long end and is quite annoying ....
Thanks for making this video Luca, I also have the FUJI 18-80 and the FUJI 70-300 so you were the perfect reviewer. My FUJI 70-300 exceeded my expectation so many times, I think i'll will take something a lot more special to kick him out! But its always interesting to see what new things are ocming out. Thanks again.
Thank you
Thank you for highlighting this up, and I am going to xf70-300.
The 70-300 is excellent. Try both if you have a chance though. The Tamron 18-300 and 17-70 both got new firmwares recently that solved some issues I was having.
You'll see what a lens the 70-300 is. It really punches above its weight.
Just sold my Fuji mount copy, soft throughout the range. Sad as it should have been a useful and versatile lens.
It could've been a great one
Thanks for the video. Clear message that it is inferior to XF 18-80mm or XF 18-120mm.
With my copy of the lens... Definitely
I'm so sad you had this experience. I was similarly disappointed with Sony 18-135 for my A6000, which had front focus issue and I had to return it. After that I recently stumbled upon the Tamron 18-300 and got that, and it surpassed my expectations. The only downside is weak low-light autofocus performance.
I noticed in the comments you mention it might have been a bad copy and as I found out myself, this does sometimes happen.
Thanks for sharing. I really hope mine was a bad sample
Got one keeping it BUT got a Canon 55-250stm. Compared to the Tamron.. wow its so sharp here I thought the Tamron was sharp. lol. I am NEW to this so
It is normal that a super zoom lens loses compared to a more reasonable zooming range lens, even if cheap. At the end of the day it's a game of trade offs
I just ordered this lens Used for 499-00 US.. Sadly I saw your review after I pulled the trigger. Let's see how I like it... I think I may go for the Xf 50-140 just spend the money not as much reach but Quality. Im shooting Xpro2 and Xt4.. Will let you know.
I probably had a bad copy of the lens. I'm sure yours will be good
I recieved this lens and and will be testing out the next few weeks. Upon arrival I like the build quality and the shots I've taken are sharp enough for me at this point.
@@robertoalfalla256 Can you describe how this lens turned out after your tests?
Well I didn't like it and returned it. I just didn't check any boxes for me. Mediocre image quality at the end of day.
I truly saw another video which reviewed similar lens and his photos and videos at all the focal lengths were pretty good and shar. Probably you should let the company check the lens for you.
I returned it via Amazon. And never have it another chance, but I may in the future
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Probably your settings might have had sth off or just the lens might have an issue.
@@JoshConnectMedia I'm sure it wasn't the settings, most likely my lens wasn't a good one
Maybe you got a bad batch? I love mine. At 300mm its pretty freaking sharp. I have the tamron 17-70, Sigma 18-50 and the sony 18-135. Honestly, i can't tell the difference without absolutely pixel peeping. Even then, the range is so much more its worth it. Im on the sony 6400. Im not a pro, im just a dad. I dont think regular people have the same experience or expectations as you(?) Its not a pro lens right? Its great for most things expect maybe a professional shoot?
I'm pretty sure I got a bad sample. This lens isn't a pro oriented lens, I didn't expect it to be like that. Again, I'm pretty sure I got a bad one and I'm happy to hear most of the users are happy with it
I have a xh2 and i love this lens.
Well explained. Thanks.
Thank you!
I had nothing but problems with this Tamron Lens on my Sony 6700. I kept on having an error focusing where the camera would not focus and I had to take the battery out and reset it
That's even worse than my experience
I really want to love this lens, but I agree completely it really struggles when at a long focal length, the pictures are just not sharp and are blurred. It's quite disappointing, I am thinking of trading it in to get the 70-300.
Well, with the Tamron copy I had the difference in image quality between the two lenses is beyond huge. To me it's a no brainier, the 70-300 is an excellent lens
I was considering this lens but not having good IQ at the long end its a deal breaker for me.
I sold mine after a few months of ownership. It was objectively a versatile lens. But it didn't feel very capable. I didn't feel like it inspired my to create art.
Thanks for sharing
I have this lens and find it as sharp as my son's Fuji 70-300 at 200-300mm at f8. Never got any results like this video. Really think he got a bad copy.
We shoot surfing and really don't use these lens for anything else. Wide open the Fuji lens is sharper. The Tamron zoom is too stiff to recommend for serious video. I use the Fuji for video. If you are just doing photography in good light, the Tamron is a bargain but forget it for video.
I use this lens on my Fuji xt3 and X S10 i love the results at both ends. A very versatile lens to go for the day with
I believe my copy wasn't great, considering everyone says they're fine with the results
@@gillyb44 hi! How to test it with X-T3 if I'll be buying it (not online)? Seems that X-T3 's sensor barely shows the true results because of it's resolution.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography BTW, did you've tested 200-300 range in different conditions? I've read that some places (like high mountains) can introduce non-sharp results just by their nature.
About that "magical Sony version results" I just think that Sony cameras use sharpen algorithms on fly as a trick to "be a legend" among usual "non-geek" users.
I tested it in several environments, and unfortunately nothing changed. Of course warm air can play it's role in bad results at 300mm at infinity or long distances, but I was getting similar results even with fairly close subjects
A superbly offered review! Thank you SO much. I am "just like you" but not as professional. Still, I already own great lenses for the wide to mid focal lengths. I'll resign myself to haul a second lens (in my bicycle pannier) for catching wildlife; i.e., 70-300mm or similar for an APS-C camera. Yes, sharpness trumps all other virtues, in a lens! Your review is unique for its frankness... in my experience. All the other reviews suppressed your fair complaint on "distal acuity." Bravo. And your English is superb as well.
Thank you a lot
Hey man thanks for the review. Like you, I also wish that this is the one lens to rull all :)
I do streetphotography with 85mm viltrox 1.8 but for travelling as well as some subjects further away this lens sounds like a gold mine. So far all reviews I read are conflicting which leads me to think that the quality of each lens is different. This makes it even a harder decision to make a purchase
I know, it sucks. At least with Amazon you can return it if it's not good. I'd like to test another copy for myself as well, I may end up pulling the trigger again in the future
You really should have tried another one because most reviewers have found it acceptably sharp.
I probably should've, but I didn't feel like giving it another chance
Good to see you Luca, this is not going to be one of my long comments, this is just to let you know that I watched the video and to thank you for taking the time to make it. I’m sure that the Sigmas and Tamrons of today are much better than when I tried them many moons ago (they were really bad) but I prefer native lenses. Be well and stay safe.
I prefer native lenses as well, but I wanted to give it a try as sometimes I want to be faithful... It didn't go well this time, but next week's video will probably be (spoiler alert) on a completely different mood
I agree completely with this review. I have the Fuji 100-400 and the 16-55, and was hoping that the Tamron would be a good walk-around single lens lightweight compromise. But you hit it on the head - it's not capable of resolving even at 26MP on my X-S10, and I'm returning it. Pity because I also liked the look and feel and weight (and price!).
I hear you... It's a big disappointment
I bought this lens encouraged by positive reviews. However, I bought it not for photography but for filming. In my opinion, photography requires better quality lenses. The movie, however, is not so demanding. The focal length of 18-300mm covers my needs but the lens could be a little brighter, although 4.0. For me, the main downside of this lens is the hard working zoom. Sometimes I need to make a smooth approach or departure. Unfortunately, even follow focus doesn't help. The sprockets skip under the influence of high force. I haven't given up yet and am looking for a solution. :-) Regards
What i think is that its not sharp for fuji mount but wht about sony mount ?..
Optically they are the same, but again. I believe my copy wasn't the best around
It's interesting, can it be a bad calibration case or just a "price" for such a wide range?
I'm not an optical specialist, so i can't tell a good guess actually.
I hope it's just a bad copy, but I can't be 100% sure
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography if you have a local Tamron service then you can ask them if they can re-calibrate the lens if you still have it.
You may be right but pictures or videos would leave more to the viewers judge.
Great for someone to speak out .I was looking for an older Sony 18-135mm lens for travel . Wonder will it be worst for my A7cr 61mp to resolve? If anyone care for a comment.Thanks
Those are both apsc lenses, they won't cover the entirety of the sensor size
I’m surprised this lens was soft for you. Dustin Abbot gave this lens a good review and was quite surprised with the sharpness of this lens. Perhaps this could be an issue of sample variation or quality control issues.
I'd hope so. And I'd be glad to test another one if Tamron sends it to me to prove me wrong.
for some reason the tamrons seem to perform better as sony versions. Despite optically beeing identical there must be something different.
@@hejakma4682 perhaps the optical formula isnt thought for x trans sensors, not really shure if it makes any difference
Looking at the comments there seems to be a large sample variation with this lens
Is this mean I should just go with the Sony a7RV with Tamron 50-400 which is similar range but seem like this one has good performance? Any similar range EOF lens for Panasonic Lumix MFT?
I'm not expert in MFT lenses honestly. I would not be a good help. As for the 50-400, although long, it doesn't have the same wide angle range. This means that is not a universal lens like the 18-300 is supposed to be.
Same on Tamron 18-200mm Di III-A VC, absolutely worst sharpness. I have Tamron 70-300mm and it is perfectly sharp, this ASP-C lenses is hell. Sigma 18-50is perfect.
The sigma is a much shorter range, way easier to build and design. I'm still convinced my copy was bad
I returned mine for similar reasons..
Ok, I'm not the only one then
I am sure to say you made a very subjective conclusion without any objective comparison. I had sony 70-350 and Tamron 18-300 both and compare side by side the photos. Tamron is brightor if you realize the focal length, i can take macro as sharp as my Tamron 11-20, and brightor and sharp at 300mm than sony 70-350mm.
Also Sony if at 350mm is difficult to take photo handheld anyway with my shaky hands.
Anyway, i am very glad with my tamron 18-300mm, with 5 year warranty, and sold my sony 70-350mm already.
It serves all my purpose unless i sometimes put on my Tamron 11-20 for the northern lights not long time ago, or my Tamrom 17-70 for very general city photo shootinh without any macro or long distance photographs.
I had the Sony 70-350 for a while after I posted this review... With my copy of the Tamron there was no comparison at all. The Sony was leaps and bounds above the tamron in sharpness
I am really disappointed to hear you say you don't like the 18 -300. I had an 18 - 270 many many years which is since broken and I was hoping that this would be the new solution but now I've heard too many reviews saying this is not very good. I am so disappointed. I really liked having the one size fits all lens for me.
I get that, but consider that I may have received a bad sample. Most of the people are pretty satisfied with it
I don't know why people expect a Superzoom lens with this aperture range to perform well in low light *smfh*
Not expecting to be good in low light, I was expecting it to be decent in normal light, and my copy was far from it
Lesson learned. Never buy 3rd party lenses unless it’s a Zeiss.
I'd say this is too extreme. There are good third party lenses around. The Viltrox 13 and 85mm for example. The sigma primes seem to be good (although I haven't tried them yet) and the sigma 18-50 seems promising.
Bro u Save me
That's a bit too much 😜