The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Tamron 18-200mm VC Di III on NEX-7

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I have just received a new Tamron 18-200mm which, if up to scratch, would make an ideal all-purpose and travel lens, roughly 27mm-300mm equivalant on full frame 35mm format.

However when I cam to research the lens online, I could not find much info and no thorough reviews, just some random comments. There is some publicity about the lens here. Tamron publish MTF graphs for the lens that look reasonable.

This lens seems particularly significant because it is Tamron's first E mount offering - I assume the first of many. The focal length range duplicates that of the Sony 18-200mm but it is an entirely different optical design.

It is a fair bit smaller and lighter than the Sony equivalent and very well made, much better than the usual superzoom plastic fantastic. For example, it has a metal body and mount and no "play" when zoomed out. It is also a tad cheaper ( the cheapest I have now found in the UK is just under £500 at Jessops)

Here is the lens mounted on the Nex-7 (taken with a Nex-5)



and in hand



And a few random shots with it today



The cappuccino shot was taken on a tripod using the 10 sec self timer, with VC turned off. It was low light so longinsh exposure needed.









What it is or has:

- Convenient
- well made
- Quiet AF
- Good image quality. There is some CA of the more benign kind which is easily corrected in Camera raw or lightroom, etc. By "Good" I mean generally very good, much better than I had anticipated. There is some loss of contrast and edge performance at the long end but it stays sharp if properly focused in the centre. Good enough to be used with confidence in most situations.
- Great Vibration reduction
- relatively small and modest weight

What it is not:

- a replacement for the Zeiss 24mm F1.8, first because it is not quite that good, and of course, somewhat slower, nor (I assume) a replacement for those super sharp Leica goodies some have stashed around.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Thanks for you report, Quentin! :)

There is no possibility that I would ever buy it (or the Sony zoom). For a super zoom it looks small (without its hood) but anything is huge compared to the NEX-7
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Quentin,

Thanks. Congratulations on your new lens. (18-200 -> 27-300, of course)
It looks like an excellent tool.
Great shots!

I wonder if and when DxO has a lens module for that lens?

Regards, K-H.
 

bradhusick

Active member
Quentin,
Thanks for sharing. The shots all seem slightly soft. Is that your experience too? Have you tried the Sony 18-200 to compare?

Please keep sharing your NEX-7 experiences!
-Brad
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Thanks for you report, Quentin! :)

There is no possibility that I would ever buy it (or the Sony zoom). For a super zoom it looks small (without its hood) but anything is huge compared to the NEX-7
Hi Vivek, yes, its quite big but small as you say for a superzoom. Not a lens for everyone!

Quentin
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks Quentin
Looks much nicer than the Sony - I'm glad it comes up to expectations.
Vivek - you of all people don't care what a camera looks like - actually, the NEX7 handles well with these zooms . . . . . and fit easily into the pocket . . . . . . . . . . . I've taken to sticking the lens into my coat pocket - it fits easily, and the camera body is ready to grab at short notice . . .the 24 zeiss fits nicely into the other pocket!

Brad . . . they look okay to me, and there's one thing you can be sure of . . . if they were soft Q would be moaning about it!

all the best
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hi K-H and Brad,

Thanks, now corrected the focal length error :cool:

I used to use DxO but sort of fell out of love with it. I now mainly use Camera raw.

At this image size, you can't really assess sharpness because they are downsized so much from the originals. I don't have the Sony to compare but I would not say the Tamron is soft - far from it. The teapot , cappuccino and avocat shots were shallow dof.

Cheers
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Thanks Quentin
Looks much nicer than the Sony - I'm glad it comes up to expectations.
Vivek - you of all people don't care what a camera looks like - actually, the NEX7 handles well with these zooms . . . . . and fit easily into the pocket . . . . . . . . . . . I've taken to sticking the lens into my coat pocket - it fits easily, and the camera body is ready to grab at short notice . . .the 24 zeiss fits nicely into the other pocket!

Brad . . . they look okay to me, and there's one thing you can be sure of . . . if they were soft Q would be moaning about it!

all the best
Hi Jono,

very true :D

I thought you were off down the pub :p

Q
 

jonoslack

Active member
Ahhhhhh - you mean this:



Taken with the NEX7 indeed, but with a rather different lens (0.95 Noctilux to be precise) :ROTFL:
 

hot

Active member
Thank you, Quentin - I hope to get my NEX7 within next 2 weeks and also consider to buy Tamron 18-200 .. a nice combination!

All pictures I saw made with NEX7/Tamron are excellent.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Jono

Exactly! And that is a shot you need a fast lens for (and a Noctilux is certainly FAST!)

Hot (hot? - not in England it isn't!) all the best with the Nex 7 when you get it. Its tough recomending lenses because our needs as photographers vary so much, but I'd certainly recommend you have a look at the Tamron. And the Zeiss. Maybe a Noctilux. Don't forget the macro (and so on......:eek::D)

Funny thing superzooms. A few years ago we went on a family vacation to Egypt and I took a Mamya ZD medium format digital camera, and a Kodak 14nx, each with various lenses. 90% of the worthwhile shots I took were with the Kodak 14nx and a Nikon 28-200 zoom. the Nikkor zoom was cheap, plasticky, but sharp (with a fair amout of distortion that needed correcting in Photoshop) and it was simply there, ready for the shot. I think the Tamron will be the same.

Quentin
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Looks to be a great lens Quentin. I actually think all the pictures posted look crisp and not soft at all. Even sharper than the noctilux beer shot (hope I don't get flamed for that, and I have to admit it has many qualities that the Tamron can't match).

Just looked at a comparison with the new 55-210 from Sony. This one is a tad more than 100 gram heavier, 5 mm thicker and 11 mm shorter. For that you get the whole range from 18-55 and will save you many lens changes so I can see this one being a much better/flexible package than the Sony.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thanks for the images. I would be really interested in a comparison with the Sony one day.
The size of the Tamron looks more appealing IMO even though the Sony handles fine on the Nex7 as well.
PLease keep posting images and your experience with the Tamron.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Thanks for the images. I would be really interested in a comparison with the Sony one day.
The size of the Tamron looks more appealing IMO even though the Sony handles fine on the Nex7 as well.
PLease keep posting images and your experience with the Tamron.
Thanks, I will, weather and other matters permitting.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member


1/13 sec, handheld, ISO1600, F/5.6, @ 52.9mm, accidentally shot as a jpeg fine, some NR.

A glass of Lagavulin for afficianados..:)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Looks to be a great lens Quentin. I actually think all the pictures posted look crisp and not soft at all. Even sharper than the noctilux beer shot (hope I don't get flamed for that, and I have to admit it has many qualities that the Tamron can't match).
Certainly not - sharp is not the way to describe a noctilux at f0.95 . . . there are plenty of ways to describe it . . . and probably there is a little bit that's sharp, but at 30cm it's going to be pretty thin (and remember, the lens wasn't designed to be used with a helicoid adapter). So - no flaming - but it does have a certain something doesn't it :)
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
What a fantastic glass of Lagavulin. And in a not so fat Whisky glass as usual.
It is congruent on your new Tamron.

The lens looks nice, black and slim on the NEX. And convincing samples.

Cheers
 

Paratom

Well-known member


1/13 sec, handheld, ISO1600, F/5.6, @ 52.9mm, accidentally shot as a jpeg fine, some NR.

A glass of Lagavulin for afficianados..:)
looks good!

If you continue coming up with such nice images I might replace my Sony 18-200 with the Tamron one day.(nothing wrong with the sony so far but I would prefer the size of the Tamron.
 
Top