Thank you for your review. This is great lens, when used with the A7RV and especially with the A6700. I used this lens with my A7RV when I traveled to Japan in spring 2023 together with the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. The combo of the A7RV with 18-300mm(27-450mm equivalent) at 26MP was excellent. On this camera the 300mm pictures appeared to be a little soft at f6.3. Since purchasing the A6700 with its new 26MP sensor all I can say is that I am very satisfied when used with the 18-300. Subjectively, I find that this new combo seems sharper and appears to have better colors than with the A7RV sensor. In the Fall of 2023 I Traveled to West Coast of the USA , including the Western national parks up to Yellowstone . The 18-300 was used exclusively with the A6700 and the 20-40 with the A7RV. The 18-300 was consistently sharp at the wider angles especially at f5.6. If you use F8.0 at 300mm (450mm equivalent) it’s also pretty sharp. It’s not close to the Sony 70-200 GM II but also a lot less expensive. I really hope that you will review the Sony A6700 soon, I enjoy using this camera very much.
Thanks! This is the first in depth review I've seen from this lens. I really like the way you've done this, with all the attention to detail and real world scenarios! I'm still waiting for my fuji pre order but only now do I have a good feeling about what to expect from it.
@ Dustin Abbott I appreciate your through reviews, You indeed set the standard for all my lens and camera purchases. I don't purchase a lens until it's reviewed by you, because your clear precise reviews gives me a better understanding of what i'm purchasing. Thank you sir.
Great review, Dustin. Im really starting to appreciate your lens reviews. This is a great all-rounder given the compromises inherent in such a design. I am picking up a Sony A6600 with an already usable 18-135mm kit lens. I would be considering the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Lens for its extra reach. Fairly impressive and Tamron has come a long way. Thank you, Sir. Nice clear, and well presented review!
Excellent review. Thanks, Dustin. I had been waiting for this one. Looks really good for such a zoom range. I will get it at some point and use your link. I just hope it won't pull and build up tons of dust inside.
Thanks for your very informative video! I've watched a couple other reviews of this lens, both for the Sony and Fuji versions. The consensus seems to be it is a winner. I was all set to get the Fuji 70-300 lens for Christmas but both B&H and Amazon report it is out of stock. The Tamron may fit the bill. Love that the wide range will save me from lens changes out in the field. Since I am an enthusiast rather than a professional photographer, I don't need cutting edge sharpness and performance, just a great bang-for-the-buck.
I've owned the Sony RX10 Mark 4 since July of last year and I have been taking increasingly better pictures all the time. This Tamron lens paired with a full frame or aps-c body is the only viable competitor in this prosumer superzoom market. But with the Sony can you get a much lighter overall package and auto zoom, which is tremendously beneficial when shooting video. You also get an autofocusing system that rivals and even supersedes some pro cameras. I looked for a thorough review of the Sony rx10 Mark 4 lens but can't find one. Wondering if you would do such a review.
Thanks for a wonderful, considered, and detailed review. Very informative. My goal is to get to 300mm (APS-C). As I consider this lens for my X-mount, in my country, the XF 70-300 is much the same price as the Tamron, but would oblige me to carry my 16-80 as well. I'll have to do some very hard thinking. Hmnnn...
Thank you for your great review on this lens. I’m really thinking of getting this lens for my landscape photography. Your review has been very helpful, thanks again 👍🏾
I have a Sigma 18-300 EF mount with a MC-11 mount converter to the Sony E-mount. It is only 0.12 inch longer but does add 90 grams of weight. Very satisfied as I can use it on 2 different cameras, a Canon and a Sony.
Looking at this review and comparing it with your Sigma 18-300 EF would you say the shakiness at the tele end is worse on the Sigma than on the Tamron?
This is the only superzoom available for my Fuji X system, and I am.pleased that you gave it good marks. I don't like constantly changing lenses when I am traveling. I am leery of using this lens on my high resolution X-T5, but it should be a good match for my Fuji X-H2s.
I’m new as a hobby and soccer dad. I have a Sony a6000 and I’m looking for a lease to take pictures of my child playing soccer and I was considering this lens based on its price. Then you suddenly mentioned in this video that you would suggest the Sony 70-350 lens for sports. What’s the difference that makes you say that. I hate to spend an extra $300 if this lens will work. Thanks
It looks good to me - Sharpish, and super convenient for travel. I asked whether I should get this or the Fuji 70-300 on a Fuji Facebook group and almost everyone said I would be mad to buy a zoom, especially a superzoom. According to them, I should be buying primes, or zooms 3 x the price. I've got an XT4 - the general attitude seemed to be, if I had the XT4, I should only be buying really expensive glass.
That really depends on what you want to do with the camera. It sounds like travel is part of your plans; I would definitely use a lens like this for that, while I would probably have a prime or two for portraits and shallow DOF photography.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah, I will probably buy some cheap Chinese lenses for that - one fast prime and one macro lens. - $300 - job done. One compact lens for hiking seems like a good idea. I've never seen the point of primes really. Most of my cameras have had one, but I've never used them. Zooms are so much more fun to use.
Hello! What is the best or not expensive Vnd filter for tamron 18-300mm sony for video. I bought a k&f concept nano-d but when I zoom out to 200-300 mm the video is very noisy. Thank you for your response.
I think Marc is correct, but as a reviewer it is impossible to validate that as you cannot turn one or the other system off and test. They are either both on, or both off.
@@DustinAbbottTWI to help back it up at least a little: the IBIS support is confirmed through internal documentation and training protocol for camera store associates.
If Nikon would open up the z mount to third parties, I might jump to z right away. I have been a long time Tamron and Sigma user starting out with a Tamron 28-300, their first edition. I still have it and it still performs well. This and the 17-70 would be nice options over the kit lens for dx. I used the Sigma 17-70 with great success for years. Lots of Nikon shooters have switched to Sony because of the limited lens options--I believe. I am not ready to do that though getting an A6xxx used is tempting. It might be good to see an off axis shot of that web to examine loca.
@@DustinAbbottTWI In ten years, there may be enough oem lenses to satisfy me! But, Tamron and Sigma have always made it much easier on my wallet and easier to fill out my kit. They also offer lenses a touch different from what Nikon sells. 17-70, 70 macro, etc.
Finally a third party AF zoom lens for Fujifilm if I am right. So I do not own ultrazoom lenses in general (dslr lenses included) because IQ is always so so. But this one might do it for me. How would you rate the overall IQ of this lens from 1 to 10?
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok thanks. I have the 18-55 but I find it not so mindblowing as everyone claims. Will give the Tamron a testdrive first when possible.
Great review! Do you plan to test Fuji version as well? I'm really curious how would this lens stack compared to a combination of 18-55 or 16-80 + 55-200 or 70-300. Given the fact that Tamron is much cheaper and smaller than those combos, it would be interesting to find out if there is any tangible sacrifice to be made in terms of image quality compared to dual-lens kits.
I have the Fuji 16-80 and 70-300 combo. The thought has crossed my mind to sell both and get the Tamron and use the remaining funds for an AF prime. The 16-80 has really served me well, the constant aperture can be beneficial in certain workflows, the contrast and colour is great. The Fuji lenses have some of the best image stabilization out there, and it is really impressive in the 70-300. If the Tamron is around 3 stops, the Fuji's will have a 2-3 stop advantage. The Fuji's are smidge brighter in f-stop as well, and combining that with the better IS could be a factor especially for low-light stills. Both Fuji's have an aperture ring, which can be important depending on shooting style. The 70-300 is really sharp and holds up very well even with a 1.4 teleconverter which you won't be able to add to the Tamron if you need to. All that said, the Tamron looks like an incredible and useful everyday and travel lens.
@@malfunkt most interesting to me is that fact that Tamron is both smaller and cheaper than Fuji 70-300, despite being 18-300. If there is no significant different in image quality and performance, then someone could simply save a lot of bulk and money by going with Tamron, as is your plan
I don't have any such plans right now. The lens should be the same optically, with perhaps some difference in autofocus performance between the two systems. My experience with the 16-80, for example, would lead me to believe that the Tamron would be every bit as sharp if not more.
Great review Dustin, thanks. A lens like this would be tempting for travelling, but I would prefer a range from, say, 18-200 instead of 300, so that the lens could stay smaller and lighter and maybe slightly faster (f/3.5 - 5.6 or something). For travel, you hardly ever need to reach beyond 200mm, except if you're a birder or shoot wildlife, in which case you'd probably spring for other (Fuji) telezooms (with an additional converter) anyway, like the 70-300 or the 100-400.
When will Sony produce a apsc in a professional body? The R7 is kicking butt at the moment and it's a great for what I need, I'm still in Sony land but if there are no pro bodies coming out then I'll switch to Canon R5 and R7. I like the idea of having both full frame and aps-c pro bodies as they give a lot more options. Dual card slots, unlimited 4k vid recording, awesome auto focus and I'll be set. R7 isn't ideal for me but Sony would probably make something I need....
Good job my friend. I feel like I know you. I Have watched so many of your videos. I am Eagerly anticipating the Z9 from Nikon which I am a Nikon and Sonny shooter how about you on the Nikon
Hi Dustin, thanks for the amazingly helpful video! I have a question though, comparing this lens to the Sony 18-135. Weight, price & size aside, is there anything that the Sony 18-135 offers over this Tamron 18-300? Does the Tamron compare well in terms of sharpness & image quality to the Sony 18-135? Also, seems like you found this lens to be rather impressive, which is great to hear. Too many people out there complaining about terrible image quality with super zooms, but this one seems like it does a brilliant job.
It's important to have realistic expectations for a superzoom lens, but this is one is better than most. I would say that the 18-135 is pretty comparable over the shared range (both are quite good), but I don't think the 18-135 gives anything extra. We've got a new video comparison here: ruclips.net/video/DVBlrCI-A5M/видео.html
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the response! And I’m not sure if I’m doing something wrong, but that link takes me to a Viltrox lens review. I don’t see the comparison video anywhere on your channel either. Could you please point me in the right direction to find the comparison between the two?
I am wondering the exact same thing! I am currently in the market for a new camera and I am strongly considering the Sony 6400, but I am super interested in how this performs compared to the Sony 18-135 at the same focal lengths.
Wondering if it's worth buying this instead of continuing to use my Sigma 18-300 with an adapter on my Sony a6500. I'd just gotten it when my Sony DSLR body died. Thus I didn't immediately go buy an E mount super zoom. Upcoming trip I'd like to reduce weight but still want one lens to use for all the shooting situations. Thoughts?
Have owned the XC 50-230 in the past. On X-Trans III sensor, the XC 50-230 is a bit slow to focus and hunts a bit. The Tamron 18-300 is much faster, perhaps not as fast and sure as the XF 70-300 or XF 16-80, but quite good. I have found firmware updates to the lens seemed to have improved general performance all-round. The XC has the benefit of being light and cheap, with quite good optics. The Tamron can also focus closer and for not much more you get a one-and-done zoom lens that covers everything. Very useful and enjoyable lens. Pair with or without a prime on walks and you are set.
I'm assuming you mean for demonstration and not for filming? The table-top tripod is this one: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy. It's a great little thing; very nicely made.
Have it for the Sony a6400 and a6300 - it has an amazing range, and a great lens as a whole, IMHO much better than Sony 18-135, for its range and specs it's actually not that big, but on the a6400/6300 it's a bit big and you can expect a bit of balance issue at first, but it's easy to get used to it.
Hi Dustin, Great review. I am new to your channel and I found your review to be very detailed and clear. I currently own the Sony e 70-350 but I am considering this lens as an all around lens. I am hoping you can help me decide by answering a question. You said in your review that the 70-350 was better for sports. How is the 70-350 better suited for sports? (I photograph non-professional sports of my kids and my family and friend's kids)
It's sharper, for one, but also it's a lens designed around fast sports action. I don't think this lens would be as well suited for that simply because of the huge zoom range, though the autofocus is very snappy.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply. I have decided that for a walk around camera, I am getting the Panasonic Lumix ZS200. For all other shooting I have my a6100 and a6400 with the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and Sony 70-350. These lenses replaced all my previous lenses. I also added the Tamron 11-20 f2.8 and the mighty little Sigma 18-50 f2.8. I use the Sigma with my gimbal for video.
Going to the beach with my a6100. to take photos of my family. In the 100 - 300mm range is this lens good for "portraits" with blurry backgrounds? I also have the Sigma 1.4 trio.
Thanks for this useful review, I'm not much impressed by the performance of this lens specially considering it's size and weight the longer focals are kindda weak which are so important to be sharp wide open to make it much more useful I think Sony 70-350mm is still the only lens to go if you need a wildlife contender which is tack sharp wide open. Which is a bummer to me cause is still a expensive option. I think Tamron is putting most of it's energy and novelty behind it's fullframe lenses, for example 28-200 is a excellent option for only 500$! I wish Tamron or Sigma work on an apsc telephoto lens to compete well with the Sony 70-350mm. A 70-400mm maybe!
Absolutely, nothing compares to the Sony 70-350. It's sad we don't have an excellent alternative. Especially considering it's made in China and I refuse funding the CCP.
I have outstanding images from this lens at 250-300mm, including Harris Hawks in flight at close range. As is always the case you work with what you have. Expecting this to compare to $1k+ non-all-in-one lenses is simply not logical. That being said, as a single travel lens for APS-C it does surprisingly well.
@@setaside2 indeed, for an all-in-one you really can't complain. I'm planning to get this as well. How are chromatic aberrations in your opinion? In other reviews I saw some images with a lot of purple.
@@SuttonBen That's true. With some products it can be nearly impossible but it's getting easier as more and more companies are moving production elsewhere. You have to do a lot of research but it's totally worth it.
Great video review on this lens. I have a question if you are able to answer it. I have a Sony A7R III, full frame mirrorless camera. Would this lens be compatible for my camera? I have been looking for a while for a versatile lens and thought this was the one, then read into it and saw it being designed for APS-C sensor cameras.
When on vacation, I hate changing lenses and last two times used the tiny RX100M7. It gives me equivalent of 24-200 f/7.5-12.1 This would be f/5.25-9.5, which is a stop better, but it goes to 450. That is A LOT more than 200. Now, the RX is like a toy, I love the size. But I hate the tiny buttons and the battery life, lol. Choices, choices...
To my knowledge there really isn't a higher end lens. Tamron's full frame 28-200mm is optically superior, but it's not like an APS-C equivalent exists.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! I think this lens is going to be perfect for me. Im currently using a Sigma 18-50mm. So far very happy with it. That said I am looking for a well rounded lens that I can use for nature, concert or A party. Lol. I know it's a lot to ask for...
How much better is this lens in terms of IQ compared to Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6? Thinking of upgrading to the Tamron if the image quality is noticeably better
@@DustinAbbottTWI Interesting, usually third-party lens are noticeably inferior when it comes to AF compared to native lens. Hmmm... something to take into consideration. Anyway, thanks for the prompt reply! Liked and subscribed!
Thank you for such a detailed review it is much appreciated. Could you help with the following ? As the lens has VC does this work along side IS in the camera. ie I have Fuji x s10 which as you know has IS built in. Will the lens and camera work against each other or should in camera IS be turned off. I’m confused I have to say.
Hi!😁 I was wandering if an older Tamron 16-300 di II would be just as good as this di III? I can find only spec sheets, but no real-world comparison between the two... Especially autofocus and stabilization capabilities would be nice to know😅 I'm planning to purchase one used, and the 16-300 di II is way cheaper, but might not be worth it...
If you don't need low light performance, then a bigger zoom range is very useful. The 18-300 isn't as sharp, but probably sharp enough at landscape apertures. The larger maximum aperture is much more useful for other types of photography, obviously.
I was thinking about getting the Tamron 28-200 until I found Tamron was doing this lens. I am after an all in one lens for taking hiking and doing landscape work, would you recommend the 18-300 or the 28-200? I am pretty fond of the best image quality possible.
Hi Dustin, new subscriber. I'm struggling w/ making a decision between the Sigma 18 - 50 and this lens. I own the Sigma 16mm. I like to keep my kit lean & mean, so I don't want 6-10 lenses in my bag. I was thinking my SIgma 16 + this lens and my kit is complete. your thoughts?
hi Mitch, the two lenses you mention are pretty different. The Sigma is much smaller and gives you an aperture advantage along with slightly better image quality. The Tamron is much larger but has a much more flexible zoom range along with giving image stabilization. The 16mm is a good compliment to either lens, but it is basically impossible for me to make the decision between the zooms for you. They are just so different, and I don't really know your needs.
god day mr dustin abbot, i was thinking of getting telephoto for a6600.. currently my choice is between tamron 70-300 vs tamron 18-300..which one of em has have better image quality at max zoom of 300mm?
I bought the tamron 18 300 a week ago for my sony 6400 and I not when I tried to take a photo of a full moon it could not focus woulod just show a very bright round pure white image. I tried different settings but no improvement. Any suggestions?
That shouldn't be a difficult focus situation, and I've done that with the combination. You might want to select a more individual point and put focus where you want it.
Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. I don't have that lens on hand, but with a Sony lens attached I don't see a Steadyshot menu option. I think they've put in a "smart" stabilizer that will detect when it is on a tripod.
Hi Dustin, thx for the review. I already have the Fuji X-T4 that i bought with a kit lens of 16-80mm. i need a lens for bird photography and wildlife, unfortunetly, 80mm is not enough with my kit lens. Should i go with this Tamron 18-300mm or with the XF 100-400mm...my thinking is i already cover 16-80mm so i think thie Xf100 to 400mm would be a better choice. I dont know about the ( Piqué ) between these 2 lenses. I would like your recommandation. Thanks in advance.
@@longboardfella5306 thx paul... you are right, the XF 100-400mm is heavy... but i think it is the best choice for wildlife with x-mount until somebody delivers something in that range.
I’m seriously considering this lens. I take my camera on backcountry canoe trips , where I am often taking the photo from the canoe. It might be an inviting passage between two points of land, a windswept pine, an autumn shoreline with blue sky and water, or coming around the bend in a river, a moose or otter . I often miss the shot (especially in the latter) because I don’t have a lens that can reach or alternately because I have the 55-200 mm on my camera and I can’t get a wide enough view. I probably take a wide angle for landscape photos in camp or Astrophotography, which I’d like to learn to do. What are your thoughts about this plan?
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! I hoped that similar to the 70-350 where it might cover it mostly but resolves poorly or has small vignettes (not horrible for what I do) but I will have to keep my hopes up for a full frame super zoom still! Love the content!
“Greedy”? Maybe look at yourself in the mirror? And when you realize who “greedy “ is go and pay for RUclips subscription” and watch without ads. That is instead of pestering an awesome reviewer who puts excellent videos for free.
That might be THE lens for my a6400 when hiking longer distances. No changing, just one lens. Thanks for the great review! 👌
Agreed. It would be very useful for that.
Thank you for your review. This is great lens, when used with the A7RV and especially with the A6700.
I used this lens with my A7RV when I traveled to Japan in spring 2023 together with the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. The combo of the A7RV with 18-300mm(27-450mm equivalent) at 26MP was excellent. On this camera the 300mm pictures appeared to be a little soft at f6.3.
Since purchasing the A6700 with its new 26MP sensor all I can say is that I am very satisfied when used with the 18-300. Subjectively, I find that this new combo seems sharper and appears to have better colors than with the A7RV sensor.
In the Fall of 2023 I Traveled to West Coast of the USA , including the Western national parks up to Yellowstone . The 18-300 was used exclusively with the A6700 and the 20-40 with the A7RV. The 18-300 was consistently sharp at the wider angles especially at f5.6. If you use F8.0 at 300mm (450mm equivalent) it’s also pretty sharp. It’s not close to the Sony 70-200 GM II but also a lot less expensive.
I really hope that you will review the Sony A6700 soon, I enjoy using this camera very much.
That's great. I'm glad you are enjoying it.
Thanks! This is the first in depth review I've seen from this lens. I really like the way you've done this, with all the attention to detail and real world scenarios! I'm still waiting for my fuji pre order but only now do I have a good feeling about what to expect from it.
Enjoy!
Outstanding reviews. Thank you for taking so much invaluable time to present such clear and definitive reviews. They are extremely helpful.
My pleasure!
@ Dustin Abbott I appreciate your through reviews, You indeed set the standard for all my lens and camera purchases. I don't purchase a lens until it's reviewed by you, because your clear precise reviews gives me a better understanding of what i'm purchasing. Thank you sir.
Glad to help!
Great review, Dustin. Im really starting to appreciate your lens reviews. This is a great all-rounder given the compromises inherent in such a design. I am picking up a Sony A6600 with an already usable 18-135mm kit lens. I would be considering the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Lens for its extra reach. Fairly impressive and Tamron has come a long way. Thank you, Sir. Nice clear, and well presented review!
My pleasure.
Excellent review. Thanks, Dustin. I had been waiting for this one. Looks really good for such a zoom range. I will get it at some point and use your link. I just hope it won't pull and build up tons of dust inside.
Hope you enjoy it!
Thanks for your very informative video! I've watched a couple other reviews of this lens, both for the Sony and Fuji versions. The consensus seems to be it is a winner. I was all set to get the Fuji 70-300 lens for Christmas but both B&H and Amazon report it is out of stock. The Tamron may fit the bill. Love that the wide range will save me from lens changes out in the field. Since I am an enthusiast rather than a professional photographer, I don't need cutting edge sharpness and performance, just a great bang-for-the-buck.
Sounds like you are a good fit for this lens.
I own the lens and can confirm the presented results 1:1. This review is completely spot on in all regards.
Thank you.
Probably not good for professional tasks, but seems like this lens is perfect for hobbyist photographer who want to shot everything and just get fun.
Exactly.
Perfect for the enthusiast. Then get prime lenses for specific uses
I've owned the Sony RX10 Mark 4 since July of last year and I have been taking increasingly better pictures all the time. This Tamron lens paired with a full frame or aps-c body is the only viable competitor in this prosumer superzoom market. But with the Sony can you get a much lighter overall package and auto zoom, which is tremendously beneficial when shooting video. You also get an autofocusing system that rivals and even supersedes some pro cameras. I looked for a thorough review of the Sony rx10 Mark 4 lens but can't find one. Wondering if you would do such a review.
Shocking results for the money and reach. Great review, thanks.
No problem 👍
Thanks for a wonderful, considered, and detailed review. Very informative. My goal is to get to 300mm (APS-C). As I consider this lens for my X-mount, in my country, the XF 70-300 is much the same price as the Tamron, but would oblige me to carry my 16-80 as well. I'll have to do some very hard thinking. Hmnnn...
Thank you for your great review on this lens. I’m really thinking of getting this lens for my landscape photography. Your review has been very helpful, thanks again 👍🏾
My pleasure, Walter.
I have a Sigma 18-300 EF mount with a MC-11 mount converter to the Sony E-mount. It is only 0.12 inch longer but does add 90 grams of weight. Very satisfied as I can use it on 2 different cameras, a Canon and a Sony.
Fair enough.
Looking at this review and comparing it with your Sigma 18-300 EF would you say the shakiness at the tele end is worse on the Sigma than on the Tamron?
Excellent review--thank you for covering this lens and its capabilities so well!
My pleasure!
Many thanks for an excellent review. I am vey much looking forward to having this lens for my Fuji X-S10 which I bought half a year ago.
That will be a nice pairing.
thnx so much for good comments, you made it me to wanted buy it
Enjoy it
This is the only superzoom available for my Fuji X system, and I am.pleased that you gave it good marks. I don't like constantly changing lenses when I am traveling. I am leery of using this lens on my high resolution X-T5, but it should be a good match for my Fuji X-H2s.
Definitely better on the lower resolution camera.
You complete Excellent reviews. This review helped me decide to buy the Tamron B061 for sony.
Glad I could help!
I’m new as a hobby and soccer dad. I have a Sony a6000 and I’m looking for a lease to take pictures of my child playing soccer and I was considering this lens based on its price. Then you suddenly mentioned in this video that you would suggest the Sony 70-350 lens for sports. What’s the difference that makes you say that. I hate to spend an extra $300 if this lens will work. Thanks
It looks good to me - Sharpish, and super convenient for travel. I asked whether I should get this or the Fuji 70-300 on a Fuji Facebook group and almost everyone said I would be mad to buy a zoom, especially a superzoom. According to them, I should be buying primes, or zooms 3 x the price. I've got an XT4 - the general attitude seemed to be, if I had the XT4, I should only be buying really expensive glass.
That really depends on what you want to do with the camera. It sounds like travel is part of your plans; I would definitely use a lens like this for that, while I would probably have a prime or two for portraits and shallow DOF photography.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah, I will probably buy some cheap Chinese lenses for that - one fast prime and one macro lens. - $300 - job done. One compact lens for hiking seems like a good idea. I've never seen the point of primes really. Most of my cameras have had one, but I've never used them. Zooms are so much more fun to use.
Hello! What is the best or not expensive Vnd filter for tamron 18-300mm sony for video. I bought a k&f concept nano-d but when I zoom out to 200-300 mm the video is very noisy. Thank you for your response.
really wanted hear more about the aperture
In what way, specifically?
Does the optical image stabilization with this Tamron lens work in tandem with in body image stabilization?
Was trying to find answer for this too and seems like it won't work together with ibis, only sony lenses work that way, but im not 100% sure.
They work together and in fact cannot work separately. Turning off IBIS turns off the VC.
@@setaside2 where do I find the documentation that confirms this?
I think Marc is correct, but as a reviewer it is impossible to validate that as you cannot turn one or the other system off and test. They are either both on, or both off.
@@DustinAbbottTWI to help back it up at least a little: the IBIS support is confirmed through internal documentation and training protocol for camera store associates.
Can you let us know the focal lengths where the aperture changes?
If Nikon would open up the z mount to third parties, I might jump to z right away. I have been a long time Tamron and Sigma user starting out with a Tamron 28-300, their first edition. I still have it and it still performs well. This and the 17-70 would be nice options over the kit lens for dx. I used the Sigma 17-70 with great success for years. Lots of Nikon shooters have switched to Sony because of the limited lens options--I believe. I am not ready to do that though getting an A6xxx used is tempting.
It might be good to see an off axis shot of that web to examine loca.
I think both Canon and Nikon are dropping the ball right now when it comes to third parties.
@@DustinAbbottTWI In ten years, there may be enough oem lenses to satisfy me! But, Tamron and Sigma have always made it much easier on my wallet and easier to fill out my kit. They also offer lenses a touch different from what Nikon sells. 17-70, 70 macro, etc.
Finally a third party AF zoom lens for Fujifilm if I am right. So I do not own ultrazoom lenses in general (dslr lenses included) because IQ is always so so. But this one might do it for me. How would you rate the overall IQ of this lens from 1 to 10?
I would probably give it a solid 7. I don’t think it is really any worse than, say, the 18-55mm.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok thanks. I have the 18-55 but I find it not so mindblowing as everyone claims. Will give the Tamron a testdrive first when possible.
Great review! Do you plan to test Fuji version as well? I'm really curious how would this lens stack compared to a combination of 18-55 or 16-80 + 55-200 or 70-300. Given the fact that Tamron is much cheaper and smaller than those combos, it would be interesting to find out if there is any tangible sacrifice to be made in terms of image quality compared to dual-lens kits.
I have the Fuji 16-80 and 70-300 combo. The thought has crossed my mind to sell both and get the Tamron and use the remaining funds for an AF prime. The 16-80 has really served me well, the constant aperture can be beneficial in certain workflows, the contrast and colour is great. The Fuji lenses have some of the best image stabilization out there, and it is really impressive in the 70-300. If the Tamron is around 3 stops, the Fuji's will have a 2-3 stop advantage. The Fuji's are smidge brighter in f-stop as well, and combining that with the better IS could be a factor especially for low-light stills. Both Fuji's have an aperture ring, which can be important depending on shooting style. The 70-300 is really sharp and holds up very well even with a 1.4 teleconverter which you won't be able to add to the Tamron if you need to.
All that said, the Tamron looks like an incredible and useful everyday and travel lens.
@@malfunkt most interesting to me is that fact that Tamron is both smaller and cheaper than Fuji 70-300, despite being 18-300. If there is no significant different in image quality and performance, then someone could simply save a lot of bulk and money by going with Tamron, as is your plan
I don't have any such plans right now. The lens should be the same optically, with perhaps some difference in autofocus performance between the two systems. My experience with the 16-80, for example, would lead me to believe that the Tamron would be every bit as sharp if not more.
This lens did actually surprise me! Very good lens!
Great and helping review
Glad it was helpful!
Great review Dustin, thanks. A lens like this would be tempting for travelling, but I would prefer a range from, say, 18-200 instead of 300, so that the lens could stay smaller and lighter and maybe slightly faster (f/3.5 - 5.6 or something). For travel, you hardly ever need to reach beyond 200mm, except if you're a birder or shoot wildlife, in which case you'd probably spring for other (Fuji) telezooms (with an additional converter) anyway, like the 70-300 or the 100-400.
They do have such a lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI not for Fuji, as far as I know
Fantastic review of a great overall lens. Added on my purchase list for my Fuji since I already own too many glasses for my Sony. Thank you!
Awesome that this is now an option!
Going to get one for my xt4 .
Great application for it.
Very nice & precise review
Thank you 🙂
Thank you for the thorough review. One question: does this lens fits on a Sony E Mount full frame camera body using APC mode?
Yes it does.
When will Sony produce a apsc in a professional body? The R7 is kicking butt at the moment and it's a great for what I need, I'm still in Sony land but if there are no pro bodies coming out then I'll switch to Canon R5 and R7. I like the idea of having both full frame and aps-c pro bodies as they give a lot more options. Dual card slots, unlimited 4k vid recording, awesome auto focus and I'll be set. R7 isn't ideal for me but Sony would probably make something I need....
Hopefully the R7 does provide some inspiration for Sony.
Thank you Dustin. Looking forward to the 28-75 g2🤤.
It's a winner, for sure.
I am wondering if this lens performs better than the Sony 55-210 in the 55-210 range. I havent been overly impressed with the 55-210.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. The Sony lens is quite old at this point.
Good job my friend. I feel like I know you. I Have watched so many of your videos. I am Eagerly anticipating the Z9 from Nikon which I am a Nikon and Sonny shooter how about you on the Nikon
Thanks for the nice feedback!
Great review Dustin, have one on preorder for the A7iii (soon to be iv)
Enjoy!
great review! I am considering this over the fuji 70-300.. Can I ask, are your sample photo's edited or SOOC? thanks!
Largely unedited other than basic exposure tweaks.
Hi Dustin, thanks for the amazingly helpful video!
I have a question though, comparing this lens to the Sony 18-135. Weight, price & size aside, is there anything that the Sony 18-135 offers over this Tamron 18-300? Does the Tamron compare well in terms of sharpness & image quality to the Sony 18-135?
Also, seems like you found this lens to be rather impressive, which is great to hear. Too many people out there complaining about terrible image quality with super zooms, but this one seems like it does a brilliant job.
It's important to have realistic expectations for a superzoom lens, but this is one is better than most. I would say that the 18-135 is pretty comparable over the shared range (both are quite good), but I don't think the 18-135 gives anything extra. We've got a new video comparison here: ruclips.net/video/DVBlrCI-A5M/видео.html
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the response! And I’m not sure if I’m doing something wrong, but that link takes me to a Viltrox lens review. I don’t see the comparison video anywhere on your channel either. Could you please point me in the right direction to find the comparison between the two?
I am wondering the exact same thing! I am currently in the market for a new camera and I am strongly considering the Sony 6400, but I am super interested in how this performs compared to the Sony 18-135 at the same focal lengths.
@@chuckshingledecker2216 Hey, I just returned my Tamron 18 300, because to heavy and slow AF at 300 mm. The 18 400 on Canon perfoms better I think.
Wondering if it's worth buying this instead of continuing to use my Sigma 18-300 with an adapter on my Sony a6500. I'd just gotten it when my Sony DSLR body died. Thus I didn't immediately go buy an E mount super zoom. Upcoming trip I'd like to reduce weight but still want one lens to use for all the shooting situations. Thoughts?
I would say the answer is probably yes. You’ll get better performance
How does this compare with XC 50-230? Specifically AF
I actually haven't tested the 50-230mm, so I don't actually know.
Have owned the XC 50-230 in the past. On X-Trans III sensor, the XC 50-230 is a bit slow to focus and hunts a bit. The Tamron 18-300 is much faster, perhaps not as fast and sure as the XF 70-300 or XF 16-80, but quite good. I have found firmware updates to the lens seemed to have improved general performance all-round. The XC has the benefit of being light and cheap, with quite good optics. The Tamron can also focus closer and for not much more you get a one-and-done zoom lens that covers everything. Very useful and enjoyable lens. Pair with or without a prime on walks and you are set.
Thanks for the informative review! What tripod are you using in the review?
I'm assuming you mean for demonstration and not for filming? The table-top tripod is this one: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy. It's a great little thing; very nicely made.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes - apologies, I should've clarified! And thank you!
which one has better image quality from these zoom lenses, this one and the 28-200 , thanks
Okay, is the golf course Holland Heights in Herkimer, NY???
Very tempted... Still might have to wait and save for 17-70 and 70-180 though. Not sure I can cope with f/6.3
Fair enough.
A question. Just purely talking image quality, which do you feel is best? This lens or the 28 to 200? I would value your opinion. Thanks.
The 28-200 is stronger
@@DustinAbbottTWI That was my feelings. Thank you, Dustin, for the quick reply. Much appreciated.
Have it for the Sony a6400 and a6300 - it has an amazing range, and a great lens as a whole, IMHO much better than Sony 18-135, for its range and specs it's actually not that big, but on the a6400/6300 it's a bit big and you can expect a bit of balance issue at first, but it's easy to get used to it.
That’s definitely an incredibly useful focal range.
Hi Dustin,
Great review. I am new to your channel and I found your review to be very detailed and clear. I currently own the Sony e 70-350 but I am considering this lens as an all around lens. I am hoping you can help me decide by answering a question. You said in your review that the 70-350 was better for sports. How is the 70-350 better suited for sports? (I photograph non-professional sports of my kids and my family and friend's kids)
It's sharper, for one, but also it's a lens designed around fast sports action. I don't think this lens would be as well suited for that simply because of the huge zoom range, though the autofocus is very snappy.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply. I have decided that for a walk around camera, I am getting the Panasonic Lumix ZS200. For all other shooting I have my a6100 and a6400 with the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and Sony 70-350. These lenses replaced all my previous lenses. I also added the Tamron 11-20 f2.8 and the mighty little Sigma 18-50 f2.8. I use the Sigma with my gimbal for video.
Going to the beach with my a6100. to take photos of my family. In the 100 - 300mm range is this lens good for "portraits" with blurry backgrounds? I also have the Sigma 1.4 trio.
You can get a fairly compressed (blurry) at longer focal lengths, though the Sigma 56mm F1.4 is going to be your best option for portraits.
Buenas Noches. Este lente es compatible con una cámara Fujifilm X-A10? Gracias
Thanks for this useful review, I'm not much impressed by the performance of this lens specially considering it's size and weight the longer focals are kindda weak which are so important to be sharp wide open to make it much more useful I think Sony 70-350mm is still the only lens to go if you need a wildlife contender which is tack sharp wide open. Which is a bummer to me cause is still a expensive option. I think Tamron is putting most of it's energy and novelty behind it's fullframe lenses, for example 28-200 is a excellent option for only 500$! I wish Tamron or Sigma work on an apsc telephoto lens to compete well with the Sony 70-350mm. A 70-400mm maybe!
Absolutely, nothing compares to the Sony 70-350. It's sad we don't have an excellent alternative. Especially considering it's made in China and I refuse funding the CCP.
@@Zunidrap Tbf, it's pretty much impossible to avoid products that involve China in the supply chain or manufacturer process
I have outstanding images from this lens at 250-300mm, including Harris Hawks in flight at close range. As is always the case you work with what you have. Expecting this to compare to $1k+ non-all-in-one lenses is simply not logical. That being said, as a single travel lens for APS-C it does surprisingly well.
@@setaside2 indeed, for an all-in-one you really can't complain. I'm planning to get this as well. How are chromatic aberrations in your opinion? In other reviews I saw some images with a lot of purple.
@@SuttonBen That's true. With some products it can be nearly impossible but it's getting easier as more and more companies are moving production elsewhere. You have to do a lot of research but it's totally worth it.
Great video review on this lens. I have a question if you are able to answer it. I have a Sony A7R III, full frame mirrorless camera. Would this lens be compatible for my camera? I have been looking for a while for a versatile lens and thought this was the one, then read into it and saw it being designed for APS-C sensor cameras.
You can use this on the RIII, but it will only cover the APS-C image circle, so you'll have to use it in crop mode (about 18MP)
When on vacation, I hate changing lenses and last two times used the tiny RX100M7. It gives me equivalent of 24-200 f/7.5-12.1 This would be f/5.25-9.5, which is a stop better, but it goes to 450. That is A LOT more than 200. Now, the RX is like a toy, I love the size. But I hate the tiny buttons and the battery life, lol. Choices, choices...
That's always a challenging decision to make.
Really considering purchasing this lens for my A6700. Out of curiosity what would be the equivalent higher end lens?
To my knowledge there really isn't a higher end lens. Tamron's full frame 28-200mm is optically superior, but it's not like an APS-C equivalent exists.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! I think this lens is going to be perfect for me. Im currently using a Sigma 18-50mm. So far very happy with it. That said I am looking for a well rounded lens that I can use for nature, concert or A party. Lol. I know it's a lot to ask for...
How much better is this lens in terms of IQ compared to Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6? Thinking of upgrading to the Tamron if the image quality is noticeably better
I'm not sure you'll find it radically better.
I wish tamron would make a 400 prime lens that’s cheaper than the standard Sony lenses
I think we'd all love that.
Yes please
I always miss focus when I use eye focus mode. I see some improvement when i use single focus mode. Do you have same problem using eye focus mode?
Hmmm, that wasn't my experience. I'm not sure what to tell you
Thanks Dustin, what is the tripod you use in the table?
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Interesting. For eye autofocus, does the Tamron lens perform worse or the same as a Sony native lens? Assuming all the other settings are the same.
I don't really find a difference in Eye AF detection between Tamron and Sony lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Interesting, usually third-party lens are noticeably inferior when it comes to AF compared to native lens. Hmmm... something to take into consideration.
Anyway, thanks for the prompt reply! Liked and subscribed!
Hey dustin, love from India… which is sharper? 18-135 or 18-300 ?
I would say the 18-135 would be ever-so-slighter sharper at some points, but not enough that you'll really be able to tell a difference.
Thank you for such a detailed review it is much appreciated. Could you help with the following ? As the lens has VC does this work along side IS in the camera. ie I have Fuji x s10 which as you know has IS built in. Will the lens and camera work against each other or should in camera IS be turned off. I’m confused I have to say.
The systems should work in cooperation. Essentially you can't turn just one off; it's either all or nothing.
Hi!😁 I was wandering if an older Tamron 16-300 di II would be just as good as this di III?
I can find only spec sheets, but no real-world comparison between the two...
Especially autofocus and stabilization capabilities would be nice to know😅
I'm planning to purchase one used, and the 16-300 di II is way cheaper, but might not be worth it...
The Di II only works on DSLRs, while the Di III is designed for mirrorless cameras. Two different lenses for different systems.
@@DustinAbbottTWI wouldn't it work with an adapter?
question, how do you switch from autofocus to manual focus without the bottom on the lens?
From within the camera
This (18-300) or Tamron 17-70 f2.8? Main use would be landscape photography.
If you don't need low light performance, then a bigger zoom range is very useful. The 18-300 isn't as sharp, but probably sharp enough at landscape apertures. The larger maximum aperture is much more useful for other types of photography, obviously.
Can this len 18-300mm be used on Sony 7m3 ?
0:38
Thought my graphics card is on its last breaths :D
Yeah, I discovered after the fact that some of those JPEGs corrupted on export.
I was thinking about getting the Tamron 28-200 until I found Tamron was doing this lens. I am after an all in one lens for taking hiking and doing landscape work, would you recommend the 18-300 or the 28-200? I am pretty fond of the best image quality possible.
I assume you are shooting on an APS-C camera? If so, then this lens is probably the better choice because it has a better APS-C zoom range.
@@DustinAbbottTWI no sorry the A7RIII
Then I would definitely stick with the 28-200mm. Otherwise you are stuck in crop mode.
Hi Dustin, new subscriber. I'm struggling w/ making a decision between the Sigma 18 - 50 and this lens. I own the Sigma 16mm. I like to keep my kit lean & mean, so I don't want 6-10 lenses in my bag. I was thinking my SIgma 16 + this lens and my kit is complete. your thoughts?
hi Mitch, the two lenses you mention are pretty different. The Sigma is much smaller and gives you an aperture advantage along with slightly better image quality. The Tamron is much larger but has a much more flexible zoom range along with giving image stabilization. The 16mm is a good compliment to either lens, but it is basically impossible for me to make the decision between the zooms for you. They are just so different, and I don't really know your needs.
Fujifilm XC50-230mm or Tamaron 18-300 which lens produce better image quality?
I haven't tested the 50-230mm, so unfortunately I don't have an informed opinion on that.
god day mr dustin abbot, i was thinking of getting telephoto for a6600.. currently my choice is between tamron 70-300 vs tamron 18-300..which one of em has have better image quality at max zoom of 300mm?
The 70-300 will be a little better. The Sony 70-350mm would be better still.
@@DustinAbbottTWI alright,much appreciated
how would you recommend this for beginner?
It's a solid choice, as you'll probably never need to take the lens off the camera. It can do most everything.
My Next lens to Fujifilm xt3 👍👍
Sounds good!
How does it compared to Nikon 28-300mm zoom? Thanks!
I'm afraid I'm not a Nikon tester, so I don't have an informed opinion.
I bought the tamron 18 300 a week ago for my sony 6400 and I not when I tried to take a photo of a full moon it could not focus woulod just show a very bright round pure white image. I tried different settings but no improvement. Any suggestions?
That shouldn't be a difficult focus situation, and I've done that with the combination. You might want to select a more individual point and put focus where you want it.
Dustin,
On the A6400 does the camera meu option turn the VC on and off. Just got this lense yesterday
Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. I don't have that lens on hand, but with a Sony lens attached I don't see a Steadyshot menu option. I think they've put in a "smart" stabilizer that will detect when it is on a tripod.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I worked it out. Thank you
Hi Dustin, thx for the review. I already have the Fuji X-T4 that i bought with a kit lens of 16-80mm. i need a lens for bird photography and wildlife, unfortunetly, 80mm is not enough with my kit lens. Should i go with this Tamron 18-300mm or with the XF 100-400mm...my thinking is i already cover 16-80mm so i think thie Xf100 to 400mm would be a better choice. I dont know about the ( Piqué )
between these 2 lenses. I would like your recommandation. Thanks in advance.
If you're happy with the 16-80mm, then add the 100-400.
The 100 to 400 is very heavy but it does support the 1.4x and 2x converters. But the weight was a problem for me in the field for hand held shooting
@@longboardfella5306 thx paul... you are right, the XF 100-400mm is heavy... but i think it is the best choice for wildlife with x-mount until somebody delivers something in that range.
Fuji also makes a 70-300 that should put well with your 16-80.
Will this work on a Canon EOS 7D Mark II ?
No - this lens is only designed for mirrorless.
It looks great but almost double the weight of the 18-135. For my focal range use is not worth the weight....
Fair enough. As I said in my text review, I think the size of the lens will produce a natural sorting effect.
I’m seriously considering this lens. I take my camera on backcountry canoe trips , where I am often taking the photo from the canoe. It might be an inviting passage between two points of land, a windswept pine, an autumn shoreline with blue sky and water, or coming around the bend in a river, a moose or otter . I often miss the shot (especially in the latter) because I don’t have a lens that can reach or alternately because I have the 55-200 mm on my camera and I can’t get a wide enough view. I probably take a wide angle for landscape photos in camp or Astrophotography, which I’d like to learn to do.
What are your thoughts about this plan?
I think you've described the perfect scenario for a lens like this.
Can I ask please what the tripod to the right called?
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
@@DustinAbbottTWI amazing thankyou
how much of FF does it cover?
Not much more than the APS-C crop.
Thank u dustin. Great review. Can u pls review nikon 18-140mm z mount apsc new lens?
I'm afraid I don't cover Nikon. sorry!
Sadly VC seems not very smooth. The question is would they fix it?
Hmmm, not quite sure what you are basing this on. That wasn't really my observation.
Will this lens cover a full frame image circle at any focal length? Has anyone tried this?
I doubt it does much. A lens like this is designed to keep the size down, which means it won't be covering a lot of extra image circle.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! I hoped that similar to the 70-350 where it might cover it mostly but resolves poorly or has small vignettes (not horrible for what I do) but I will have to keep my hopes up for a full frame super zoom still! Love the content!
$1,000.000 Question: Can I use the "70-300mm XF 1.4x TC WR Teleconverter" -- with the TAMRON 18-300MM?
The street price for used 18-135 is a lot cheaper though.
That's true.
The stabilization is its major weakness for tamron 18-300mm Fuji 70-300 have much better stabilization thanks they did try
At one point Tamron is one of the best with optical stabilization, but that's not really the case anymore.
We have to sit through 3 ads before we can see your video? You ate too greedy. Others aren't that bad so I'll watch theirs.
That's actually a RUclips choice, not mine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI in that case, sorry. I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me.
@@jjaylad I had none tonight.
“Greedy”? Maybe look at yourself in the mirror? And when you realize who “greedy “ is go and pay for RUclips subscription” and watch without ads. That is instead of pestering an awesome reviewer who puts excellent videos for free.
What a cool lens that one and go. Hmmm. I have an a6400 too. Looks tasty.
It is a very versatile lens.