Now an owner of the Tamron 18-300, I can see why people like it. As for my assessment, it optically is incredible. Body wise, it is not up to the same standard as Sony or Sigma lens. But for the price and its capabilities, it is a great lens for the photographer on a budget. Most people will be hard pressed to differentiate pictures taken with a Sony, Sigma or Tamron. As I use the lens, I hope the zooming smooths out, it's a little rough. I still can't get over how it works in macro mode. Incredible.
This seems to be a very good lens option for me and my documentary landscape environmental photography especially as I shoot everything at F8. I am a Fuji shooter so I'm really pleased that they finally opened up their lens mount to third party lens makers, this has been for me one of the biggest drawbacks of a Fuji system, really looking forward the Sigma's lenses.
Good to hear that ultrazooms are finally getting decent optical performance compared from those released in the DSLR days, kudos to tamron for doing a great job on that. I'm curious though, would you also be testing the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8?
I'm a frequent traveller and currently I'm using my Fuji X-T2 with my trusted 18-135mm, but the extra reach sure does sound appealing to me. I'm a bit surprised that in the range of 50-70mm the image quality tends to be a little bit less as this is mostly the case at the telephoto range of such superzooms.
I think this is an interesting competition to the Sony 18-135. Sony’s is very compact, but the Tamron has longer reach. The 18-135 was about perfect for my goals at the time: all in one lens for long distance hiking. Needed to be small and do anything I could want. Barely wide enough for landscapes, impressive reach, and most importantly lightweight. Ultimately though I found myself reaching a point where I started to value image quality over versatility. 18mm wasn’t *quite* wide enough, and image quality at 135mm was solidly *ok*. So, swapped out to a wide angle zoom, and if I don’t need to worry about weight the 70-350 is pretty great to have as a second lens. All that said…. Being able to reach 300mm on APSC without needing the lens swap is enticing. This could honestly be a great recommendation for someone who is really new and doesn’t know what they like to shoot. Close focus range, long max focal length, just wide enough, image quality is good.
@@DustinAbbottTWIBut do you think that difference it's significant? Because on the apsc lens I have OSS and a wider field of view, but the full frame option has a wider aperture and it's sharper. I don't know what to choose! hahaha
@@DustinAbbottTWIHi... which would best suit the Sony alpha A74 full frame mirrorless camera ...18-300 or 28-200 for travel, modeling and just random😅 shots Thank you so much
That really depends on your shooting goals. This lens won't be as good a performer optically or in tracking for action. It's a multi-purpose lens, while the 70-350 is more of a specialist lens.
I don't need this lens on Sony E as I shoot FF there but it's is a contender on Fuji X as a travel lens on my X-T3. Right now my shoulder bag set up is the X-T3 with battery grip with the 16-55 F2.8, the 55-200 and the 10-24 F4 WR as my daylight set up. For the evening/low light I swap out the 55-200 to the Fuji F1.4 or the Viltrox 33mm F1.4. Maybe both lenses. That shoulder bag gets pretty heavy though with lens filters, adaptors and a drink bottle also.
I think camera and lens manufacturers are using the in camera distortion correction more aggressively to make the lens smaller and sharper, which is welcome given the technology we’re have today. I only wish sigma will release a 18-250 F3.5- F6, or 18-200 F4 or something, and keep the weight to 400g to compete with Tamron. I mean they’ve been competing with less focal length but with much less weight. Something like that would be awesome
Very informative review, thanks! Have you noticed any fringing/chromatic aberration at some circumstances? I've seen some other reviews and I've notices some fringing which makes me rethink about buying this lens. Edit: I'm now going to watch the Definitive Review now.
Hi sir..great video. I am using the tamron 18-300 lence with my sony a6400. Can you tell me how to on the vibration controll of the lence as the lence does not have any button.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I've owned both at the same time, and the Fuji positively demolishes the 18-300 in its zoom range. As it should, mind you, as it's a completely different, much more specialized lens, but it really isn't a matter of it being a _bit_ sharper.
Teacher, may I ask, I currently use x-t4, the lenses are xf16, xf56, xf70-300, I am sure to buy tamron 150-500mm, but I also like tamron 17-70 and tamron 18-300, if it is you , tamron 17-70, tamron 18-300, xf70-300, these three lenses, choose two or one, how would you choose, can you give me a reference??? Thank you
Would this be a good lens to get pics of a high school band member on a football field? I have a Sony a6100 and would like to get away from the kit lenses. The 55-210 is not that great.
It will definitely give you some reach. A superzoom lens like this isn't as sharp as some lenses with smaller zoom ranges, but the image quality should definitely at least match the 55-210 while giving you much more flexibility in the focal lengths.
I use it on a Sony a7iii for video and I’m super happy with it. Autofocus is surprising … better than with my tamron 28-75 … just have less option to do setting and most go automotic for shutter speed etc … but all work super fine … filming sport mainly. Some footage on my channel video from Argentina world championship inline speed skating
How would one compare the image quality of this lens with a "super-zoom" camera like the Sony Rx 10 III? Would an APS-C camera coupled with the Tamron 18-300 be a better choice as a "super zoom"? Focal length wouldn't be too far apart - I'm assuming the 18-300 is the equivalent of 27-450 and with the larger sensor you could crop a bit to get roughly the same look if you were zoom into 600mm (as the Rx 10 III offers). Thoughts? Anyone done an actual comparison?
Not particularly. You'll have to shoot in APS-C mode, so that limits you to quite low resolution on the a7C. The Tamron 28-200mm RXD is the better choice for your A7C
That's too open ended a question. Best one for what? The Tamron is about twice as large physically, but also has a zoom range that is more than 5x broader. It's going to be more versatile. The Sigma is compact and has that fast maximum aperture. That's going to be the better choice for other situations. You've got to choose what your priorities are.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Now an owner of the Tamron 18-300, I can see why people like it. As for my assessment, it optically is incredible. Body wise, it is not up to the same standard as Sony or Sigma lens. But for the price and its capabilities, it is a great lens for the photographer on a budget. Most people will be hard pressed to differentiate pictures taken with a Sony, Sigma or Tamron. As I use the lens, I hope the zooming smooths out, it's a little rough. I still can't get over how it works in macro mode. Incredible.
Looks really interesting to me as an all in one lens for apsc 👍
This seems to be a very good lens option for me and my documentary landscape environmental photography especially as I shoot everything at F8. I am a Fuji shooter so I'm really pleased that they finally opened up their lens mount to third party lens makers, this has been for me one of the biggest drawbacks of a Fuji system, really looking forward the Sigma's lenses.
Exactly!
Purchased it today for Sony ZV e10
Good to hear that ultrazooms are finally getting decent optical performance compared from those released in the DSLR days, kudos to tamron for doing a great job on that. I'm curious though, would you also be testing the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8?
My review came out yesterday.
I'm a frequent traveller and currently I'm using my Fuji X-T2 with my trusted 18-135mm, but the extra reach sure does sound appealing to me. I'm a bit surprised that in the range of 50-70mm the image quality tends to be a little bit less as this is mostly the case at the telephoto range of such superzooms.
It sounds like this lens might be a good one for you.
I think this is an interesting competition to the Sony 18-135. Sony’s is very compact, but the Tamron has longer reach. The 18-135 was about perfect for my goals at the time: all in one lens for long distance hiking. Needed to be small and do anything I could want. Barely wide enough for landscapes, impressive reach, and most importantly lightweight.
Ultimately though I found myself reaching a point where I started to value image quality over versatility. 18mm wasn’t *quite* wide enough, and image quality at 135mm was solidly *ok*. So, swapped out to a wide angle zoom, and if I don’t need to worry about weight the 70-350 is pretty great to have as a second lens.
All that said…. Being able to reach 300mm on APSC without needing the lens swap is enticing. This could honestly be a great recommendation for someone who is really new and doesn’t know what they like to shoot. Close focus range, long max focal length, just wide enough, image quality is good.
That's a fair assessment.
I got this lens with a a6000 as a first setup for outdoor photography. Haven’t gotten it yet tho.
Enjoy!
Hi Dustin. Talking about sharpness, What do you think is the sharpest lens? The 18-300 or the 28-200 (using it on an APS-C camera) Thank you so much.
I would say the 28-200 is the sharper lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you Dustin for answering
@@DustinAbbottTWIBut do you think that difference it's significant? Because on the apsc lens I have OSS and a wider field of view, but the full frame option has a wider aperture and it's sharper. I don't know what to choose! hahaha
@@DustinAbbottTWIHi... which would best suit the Sony alpha A74 full frame mirrorless camera ...18-300 or 28-200 for travel, modeling and just random😅 shots
Thank you so much
@@sebastianmartinezsantos5289 I am in same confusion. Which one should I buy for my a6400 ? 18-300 or 28-200 ?
Really wish there was a comparison with the 70-350. I'm wondering if I should sell my 70-350 for this?
exactly what I thought! :)
That really depends on your shooting goals. This lens won't be as good a performer optically or in tracking for action. It's a multi-purpose lens, while the 70-350 is more of a specialist lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWIdoes the extra 50mm on Sony make a significant difference on the reach?
I don't need this lens on Sony E as I shoot FF there but it's is a contender on Fuji X as a travel lens on my X-T3. Right now my shoulder bag set up is the X-T3 with battery grip with the 16-55 F2.8, the 55-200 and the 10-24 F4 WR as my daylight set up. For the evening/low light I swap out the 55-200 to the Fuji F1.4 or the Viltrox 33mm F1.4. Maybe both lenses. That shoulder bag gets pretty heavy though with lens filters, adaptors and a drink bottle also.
That sounds like a good application.
Hi Dustin. Yhanks for your excellent review! love your picture at 12:16!!!
Thank you!
I think camera and lens manufacturers are using the in camera distortion correction more aggressively to make the lens smaller and sharper, which is welcome given the technology we’re have today.
I only wish sigma will release a 18-250 F3.5- F6, or 18-200 F4 or something, and keep the weight to 400g to compete with Tamron. I mean they’ve been competing with less focal length but with much less weight. Something like that would be awesome
Very informative review, thanks! Have you noticed any fringing/chromatic aberration at some circumstances? I've seen some other reviews and I've notices some fringing which makes me rethink about buying this lens.
Edit: I'm now going to watch the Definitive Review now.
I think the Definitive Review should certain help.
Hi sir..great video. I am using the tamron 18-300 lence with my sony a6400. Can you tell me how to on the vibration controll of the lence as the lence does not have any button.
You turn it on and off from within the camera.
I wonder how this compares to the Fuji 70-300mm especialy at the longer focal ranges, they can both be had at a very similar price.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Fuji is a bit sharper (much smaller zoom ratio), but the Tamron is pretty strong.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I've owned both at the same time, and the Fuji positively demolishes the 18-300 in its zoom range. As it should, mind you, as it's a completely different, much more specialized lens, but it really isn't a matter of it being a _bit_ sharper.
Teacher, may I ask, I currently use x-t4, the lenses are xf16, xf56, xf70-300, I am sure to buy tamron 150-500mm, but I also like tamron 17-70 and tamron 18-300, if it is you , tamron 17-70, tamron 18-300, xf70-300, these three lenses, choose two or one, how would you choose, can you give me a reference??? Thank you
Hi Dustin, I like you videos. can you tell me what that tripod is ? on the table ,tamron 18-300mm review !
Sure - it's this one: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
thak you
Would this be a good lens to get pics of a high school band member on a football field? I have a Sony a6100 and would like to get away from the kit lenses. The 55-210 is not that great.
It will definitely give you some reach. A superzoom lens like this isn't as sharp as some lenses with smaller zoom ranges, but the image quality should definitely at least match the 55-210 while giving you much more flexibility in the focal lengths.
@@DustinAbbottTWI great thanks for the feedback!
Thank you for this information
My pleasure
I use it on a Sony a7iii for video and I’m super happy with it. Autofocus is surprising … better than with my tamron 28-75 … just have less option to do setting and most go automotic for shutter speed etc … but all work super fine … filming sport mainly. Some footage on my channel video from Argentina world championship inline speed skating
That's great!
How would one compare the image quality of this lens with a "super-zoom" camera like the Sony Rx 10 III? Would an APS-C camera coupled with the Tamron 18-300 be a better choice as a "super zoom"? Focal length wouldn't be too far apart - I'm assuming the 18-300 is the equivalent of 27-450 and with the larger sensor you could crop a bit to get roughly the same look if you were zoom into 600mm (as the Rx 10 III offers). Thoughts? Anyone done an actual comparison?
I’ve been scheduled in the past to review one of the RX cameras, but I’ve never actually done a review yet.
Hi Dustin, is this lens usefull for my FF Sony A7C?
Not particularly. You'll have to shoot in APS-C mode, so that limits you to quite low resolution on the a7C. The Tamron 28-200mm RXD is the better choice for your A7C
would this lens be usable for shooting soccer matches? i tried with my 85 prime but obviously not enough reach.
So long as they are well lit, yes.
Would you recommend this for full frame Sony, like a7 rii?
Not really. The Tamron 28-200 for full frame makes more sense.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Much thanks 🙏🏽
Thank you my friends. I think for the money is worth every penny.
Agreed.
how does the optics compare to the 18-400mm (adapted) ?
This lens is better optically.
tanmron 18-300 or xc 50-230! which one has better image quality
I lean towards the Tamron.
between this tamron 18-300 and sigma 17-50 mm f2.8 which is the best one?
That's too open ended a question. Best one for what? The Tamron is about twice as large physically, but also has a zoom range that is more than 5x broader. It's going to be more versatile. The Sigma is compact and has that fast maximum aperture. That's going to be the better choice for other situations. You've got to choose what your priorities are.
Nice lens and great review. Really would love to see this on the EOS-M mount.
I've heard that a few times, but there just doesn't seem to be much third party development on EF-M
I'm from Bolivia and I never seen that old 10k bill 😅
It is a very old one!
Imagine if this was f4 constant
It would be much, much bigger.