Great review , thank you for sharing your expertise with us. This was a very help video as I had just bought this lens for my wife's A6500 for a trip to Italy, Greece, Istanbul,Kudasi, Crete AND Barcelona. I was considering taking it back as I have 5 more days to return it for full refund. But I am happy to keep it for her now. Thank you again.
14K views but only few hundreds like? Come on guys this is great review. I've watch a bunch of other review of this lens but only here I get to know about the closer macro focus using MF. Well done sir, thank you for sharing. I hope this video can reach more viewers
Thanks for this! I own a Fuji X-T4 but I imagine the Tamron 18-300 for Sony would be similar to the Fuji version. 18-300 mm is a great range and would cover most bases. For $700, seems a very reasonable deal. Plus no lens changes in conditions where the sensor would pick up dust.
I have the Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 and it's been my go to lens for over 5 years. First on my Canon 70D and know on my Lots of great photos, though it doesn't quite have the range nor can be used as a macro lens. Canon M6
I try to buy at a local level to help keep our only photo shop alive. That said, had ordered the 17-70 Tamron but it got shipped to the wrong shop when going in to pick it up, the lens counter guy recommended this as a better choice after a conversation. A raw beginner I am searching if I am making the right choice by going with this one. Your video gave me a bit of confidence as money is always a consideration. Thanks subscribed as well
@@sathamhussain5319hey, i know it's a bit late but the sony lens is much better for video because of the consistent f4 aperture. but tamron is not bad when you have enough light :)
I intend to purchase the Tamron 16-300mm Nikon F Mount Version for my Nikon D5500 and Nikon D5600 for my travel photography alongside my Nikon 50mm F1.4, Nikon 85mm F 1.8, Youngnou 35mm, Youngnou 50mm and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4.
I had an RX10m3, which was a great walk-around/travel camera. I sold the RX10 because the autofocus on moving objects sucked, The RX10m4 was much better but I wasn't ready to buy it. I sold my A99ii and got the Sigma 150-600mm sport and the Tamron 50-400m for my A7 m4. Great combos for birds and wildlife but you are lugging around a lot of gear for general shooting. So, I just bought the Sony A6700 and this lens. The combo is just slightly larger than my old RX10 but is a much better walk-around/travel camera. It is very sharp across the zoom range and the macro capabilities are amazing. I do pay a price in noise in low light conditions compared to full frame, but that's about my only issue, and that's not a fault of the lens. It is sharp across the whole zoom range and sharp corner to comer. Pixel peepers may nit-pick but I see sharp at 1:1 on my screen. If you have to buy just one lens for your Sony/Fuji APS-C camera, buy this
Thanks for the review. I bought it recently with a Sony A6400 kit. I take sharp 300mm shoots with 1/100s, the stabilisation is awesome. BTW, how to deactivate the lens stabilisation in my camera? Just to see the differeneces.
I've been pondering for years to get one exclusively for hikes. Does that sound like a good idea? I always bring more than two - three lenses and end up using only one during these long walks.. Which in the end always makes me think of these long reach variable lenses, except ofc when im hunting down that specific picture.
As a hobbyist photographer i really want this for my a7 it will have more reach than the 28-200 and i have some full frame primes for things like portraits. Do you think it will be as good for the casual photographer to use on full frame i really like the reach
You've convinced me! I'll be getting this lens. Currently I have a sigma 16 but is there a lighter prime lens you'd recommend to replace that with to have that secondary wide lens?
Ooh that 16 is so nice though :) You could go with a Samy or Rokinon 12mm manual focus. They are smaller/lighter. I am struggling to come up with anything significantly cheaper.
It doesn't have AF/MF ? I am looking at buying one, but i am a total beginner. How do you AF on this one ? Sorry for the dumb question. I'm still struggling to understand what is done by the camera, and what is done by the lense. The interaction between the two.
Thx for the review. I think the Fuji XF70-300mm is a better choice, why ? because most people will buy a combo xt-4 with 16-55mm or even 16-80mm so it cover already a part of the range of the tamron 18-300mm. My second reason, i can add teleconverter 1.4x or 2.0x to the fujifilm ...something i can't with the Tamron.
Planning to buy a6400.. 18-300mm looks like a best all round lens. Do you suggest this lens over Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 which is good for low light as well?
If you want just one lens the Tamron is great. If you want better quality in low light you should go with the 17-70. You sacrifice range but you will get better pics in low light.
You would still need some faster lenses for indoor activities. Just one additional fast portrait lens just wouldn't cut it for most apsc users. Big reason camera buyers opt for fast primes is the slow apertures of the kit lenses. I have the Tamron 17 - 70 fixed f2.8 which is a better compromise but I still like my primes better.
@@smileofdeanin sports 135 is very common as an average of outdoor and indoor sports for portraits it would be 50 or 85 landscapes would be as wide as you could go,16, 18, or wider
Which lens is better for Sony A7 IV? Tamron 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD or Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS? What would you recommend as a better choice?
I wouldn't mind if the aperture (f-stop) was slower as long as they can keep it relatively small and sharp like this crop version. Order of Importance (for me): 1) Usuable edge to edge sharpness 2) Reasonably compact 3) Reasonable price 4) Sturdy build; no wiggle 5) Decent AF 6) At least splash proof 7) Manual focus ring 8) no plastic
@@ryansellars7954 Actually, using a crop sensor lens on a full frame camera usually would not cover the entire sensor unless the lens was designed to fill larger sensors. Also, if you change the sensor size while keeping the lens the same, it does change the depth of field. A 58mm f/1.2 on a APS-C would approximately look equivalent to an 85mm f/1.8. Try it. That's why an f/0.95 on an APS-C isn't as impressive as an f/0.95 on a FF because the f/0.95 on APS-C is just about f/1.4. For more obvious results, try an f/0.95 on a Micro Four-Thirds sensor. It will look similar to an f/1.8 in terms of depth of field. Trust me, I've tested this out plenty of times. A 200mm f/4 made for an micro four-thirds if adapted onto a full frame sensor would become a 100mm f/2 but would NOT cover the entire sensor. So you'd end up with a smaller image with black edged (a cropped image).
Been considering this, or the Fuji 70-300 (Which is crazy sharp). I would pair this with a Samyang 12mm F2 for video and Astro, and a 7artisans 60mm 2.8 macro... for macro photography (LOL). If I go for the Fuji, I will probably also get the 18-55 as well (Which is good, and cheap).
That is a very complete kit! and of course you can use that 60mm for nice portraits too. And Fuji does such a nice job with thier kit lenses - the 18-55 is very nice.
Great review , thank you for sharing your expertise with us. This was a very help video as I had just bought this lens for my wife's A6500 for a trip to Italy, Greece, Istanbul,Kudasi, Crete AND Barcelona. I was considering taking it back as I have 5 more days to return it for full refund. But I am happy to keep it for her now. Thank you again.
14K views but only few hundreds like? Come on guys this is great review. I've watch a bunch of other review of this lens but only here I get to know about the closer macro focus using MF. Well done sir, thank you for sharing. I hope this video can reach more viewers
Thanks for this! I own a Fuji X-T4 but I imagine the Tamron 18-300 for Sony would be similar to the Fuji version. 18-300 mm is a great range and would cover most bases. For $700, seems a very reasonable deal. Plus no lens changes in conditions where the sensor would pick up dust.
I have the Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 and it's been my go to lens for over 5 years. First on my Canon 70D and know on my Lots of great photos, though it doesn't quite have the range nor can be used as a macro lens. Canon M6
Well made review. Am considering this lens for when I travel light, yet still need decent reach for aviation topics.
Picked up this bad boy last week. Going to get the Tamron 28-200 for full frame as well.
I try to buy at a local level to help keep our only photo shop alive. That said, had ordered the 17-70 Tamron but it got shipped to the wrong shop when going in to pick it up, the lens counter guy recommended this as a better choice after a conversation. A raw beginner I am searching if I am making the right choice by going with this one. Your video gave me a bit of confidence as money is always a consideration. Thanks subscribed as well
thank you for the video, i just bought the lens after years of the kit lens on my a6000... I'm excited
Nice! Enjoy!
How have you been getting along with it 1 year on?
Thinking about getting one for my a6000. Thanks
Why not a 16-135 F4 all the way? it would be awesome!
I have been looking for the most versatile lens to go with the Sony A7III model and now it seems that the answer is here. Thank you. :)
Thank. I”ll buy it and sony 6700
My only concern is shooting wildlife in cloudy/dark environments - is there enough light at f/6.3 at 300mm to take a bird or animal photo?
Had you bought it, how's your experience and would you recommend between this pair with XT5 or Tamron 50-400 pair with A7RV?
Hi sir pls reply for me
Which lens is best for photography and videography
18-105 f4 sony
Or
Tamron 18-300 f 3.5-6.3
@@sathamhussain5319hey, i know it's a bit late but the sony lens is much better for video because of the consistent f4 aperture. but tamron is not bad when you have enough light :)
I intend to purchase the Tamron 16-300mm Nikon F Mount Version for my Nikon D5500 and Nikon D5600 for my travel photography alongside my Nikon 50mm F1.4, Nikon 85mm F 1.8, Youngnou 35mm, Youngnou 50mm and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4.
Can this be used on an A7Ciii?
I had an RX10m3, which was a great walk-around/travel camera. I sold the RX10 because the autofocus on moving objects sucked, The RX10m4 was much better but I wasn't ready to buy it. I sold my A99ii and got the Sigma 150-600mm sport and the Tamron 50-400m for my A7 m4. Great combos for birds and wildlife but you are lugging around a lot of gear for general shooting. So, I just bought the Sony A6700 and this lens. The combo is just slightly larger than my old RX10 but is a much better walk-around/travel camera. It is very sharp across the zoom range and the macro capabilities are amazing. I do pay a price in noise in low light conditions compared to full frame, but that's about my only issue, and that's not a fault of the lens.
It is sharp across the whole zoom range and sharp corner to comer. Pixel peepers may nit-pick but I see sharp at 1:1 on my screen. If you have to buy just one lens for your Sony/Fuji APS-C camera, buy this
Thanks for the review. I bought it recently with a Sony A6400 kit. I take sharp 300mm shoots with 1/100s, the stabilisation is awesome. BTW, how to deactivate the lens stabilisation in my camera? Just to see the differeneces.
I've been pondering for years to get one exclusively for hikes. Does that sound like a good idea?
I always bring more than two - three lenses and end up using only one during these long walks.. Which in the end always makes me think of these long reach variable lenses, except ofc when im hunting down that specific picture.
It does sound like a good idea. Simplify your kit when hiking and I think you will be happy.
That is EXACTLY why I'm considering the Tamron.
Me too. I am considering buying it only for hiking
Nice..
How is our ISO on these pictures ?
for me, the default is not having a switch to close / open the stabilization ...
Do you think this lens is good for surf photography? At 300mm, for instance, will the AF still track the subject and give nice pics?
As a hobbyist photographer i really want this for my a7 it will have more reach than the 28-200 and i have some full frame primes for things like portraits. Do you think it will be as good for the casual photographer to use on full frame i really like the reach
Is it parfocal ?
Awesome vídeo!
You've convinced me! I'll be getting this lens. Currently I have a sigma 16 but is there a lighter prime lens you'd recommend to replace that with to have that secondary wide lens?
Ooh that 16 is so nice though :) You could go with a Samy or Rokinon 12mm manual focus. They are smaller/lighter. I am struggling to come up with anything significantly cheaper.
Hi! Thank you for this video! I believe I will buy this lens ;)
Glad you found it useful!
It doesn't have AF/MF ? I am looking at buying one, but i am a total beginner. How do you AF on this one ? Sorry for the dumb question. I'm still struggling to understand what is done by the camera, and what is done by the lense. The interaction between the two.
Thx for the review. I think the Fuji XF70-300mm is a better choice, why ? because most people will buy a combo xt-4 with 16-55mm or even 16-80mm so it cover already a part of the range of the tamron 18-300mm. My second reason, i can add teleconverter 1.4x or 2.0x to the fujifilm ...something i can't with the Tamron.
At the long end 300mm it is a little soft that’s the only catch about this lens. Besides that it’s great.
Planning to buy a6400.. 18-300mm looks like a best all round lens. Do you suggest this lens over Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 which is good for low light as well?
If you want just one lens the Tamron is great. If you want better quality in low light you should go with the 17-70. You sacrifice range but you will get better pics in low light.
You would still need some faster lenses for indoor activities. Just one additional fast portrait lens just wouldn't cut it for most apsc users. Big reason camera buyers opt for fast primes is the slow apertures of the kit lenses. I have the Tamron 17 - 70 fixed f2.8 which is a better compromise but I still like my primes better.
what prime focal length will you recommend me if I have this tamron 18-300?
@@smileofdeanin sports 135 is very common as an average of outdoor and indoor sports
for portraits it would be 50 or 85
landscapes would be as wide as you could go,16, 18, or wider
Which lens is better for Sony A7 IV? Tamron 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD or Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS? What would you recommend as a better choice?
Should I get this, or the 28-200?
what camera are you using? If APS-C like an a6000 series - I would recommend the 18-300. If shooting on a full frame get the 28-200.
@@photorectoby A7iii
@@JuanMarquezVerified You want the 28-200.
@@photorectoby But if I use the APS-C mode on, in say A7ii, wouldn't it give the result of the crop sensor?
@@avijitbhattacharya5528 Yes - but why carry around a full frame camera to only use it as an APS-C? I don't advise it.
I wish they'd make a full frame version of that!
Crop: 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3
FF: 27-450mm f/5.3-9.5
... or FF: 28-400mm f/4-8
I wouldn't mind if the aperture (f-stop) was slower as long as they can keep it relatively small and sharp like this crop version.
Order of Importance (for me):
1) Usuable edge to edge sharpness
2) Reasonably compact
3) Reasonable price
4) Sturdy build; no wiggle
5) Decent AF
6) At least splash proof
7) Manual focus ring
8) no plastic
Using a crop factor lens on a full frame camera does not change the aperture, its not like using a teleconverter.
@@ryansellars7954 Actually, using a crop sensor lens on a full frame camera usually would not cover the entire sensor unless the lens was designed to fill larger sensors. Also, if you change the sensor size while keeping the lens the same, it does change the depth of field. A 58mm f/1.2 on a APS-C would approximately look equivalent to an 85mm f/1.8. Try it. That's why an f/0.95 on an APS-C isn't as impressive as an f/0.95 on a FF because the f/0.95 on APS-C is just about f/1.4. For more obvious results, try an f/0.95 on a Micro Four-Thirds sensor. It will look similar to an f/1.8 in terms of depth of field. Trust me, I've tested this out plenty of times. A 200mm f/4 made for an micro four-thirds if adapted onto a full frame sensor would become a 100mm f/2 but would NOT cover the entire sensor. So you'd end up with a smaller image with black edged (a cropped image).
Been considering this, or the Fuji 70-300 (Which is crazy sharp). I would pair this with a Samyang 12mm F2 for video and Astro, and a 7artisans 60mm 2.8 macro... for macro photography (LOL). If I go for the Fuji, I will probably also get the 18-55 as well (Which is good, and cheap).
That is a very complete kit! and of course you can use that 60mm for nice portraits too. And Fuji does such a nice job with thier kit lenses - the 18-55 is very nice.
Thank you, what's the equivalent for Canon camera?
For APS-C Tamron makes an 18-400. It is quite good.
How the company “fixing the problems soon after” helps you if you already bought the lens on release?
Because it is a firmware fix that can be downloaded and installed - nothing physical needs to change.
Cool
you really don't need to repeat square plug 1000 in a video man.....
Huh? You think money grows on trees?
@@igntambir true...