Tamron announces 15x zoom lens for Nikon, Canon DSLRs

The 15x number may be regularly tossed around these days when it comes to point-and-shoot cameras, but it has been uncharted territory for DSLRs, at least until Tamron's new ultra zoom lens here made its first appearance yesterday. Apparently the first lens of its kind, the AF18-270MM Di II VC covers the 35mm equivalent range of 28mm to 419mm, and does so with the aid of Tamron's proprietary tri-axial Vibration Compensation (or VC) mechanism, which promises to eliminate or substantially reduce the effects of camera shake. Unfortunately, while Tamron was understandably keen to show of its handiwork as quickly as possible, it's not as forthcoming with any word of a price or release date, although it does assure us that the lens will be available in both Canon and Nikon mounts whenever it is actually released.

[Via Fareastgizmos.com]

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2008 1:54PM]

I bet it looks really stupid when fully extended, but I must admit that zoom range is more than impressive.

[schmitty338 @ Aug 1st 2008 2:13PM]

. . . That's what she said.

[schmitty338 @ Aug 1st 2008 2:14PM]

....I apologize for that, I feel all dirty now.

[Paul @ Aug 1st 2008 3:47PM]

Schmitty:

That is also what she said.

[zerocalories @ Aug 1st 2008 4:14PM]

This lens could provide a nice range for a walk around lens. Hopefully the VC works well cause at it'll be welcomed at the long end.

[Jeremy S @ Aug 1st 2008 6:33PM]

@zero calories

That is what she said

Sorry, this can go on all day.

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2008 1:54PM]

Sounds neet but highly expensive.

[schmitty338 @ Aug 1st 2008 2:16PM]

How can a camera lens be Not currently engaged in Education, Employment or Training?
:-S

However, I would say it is quite neat.

[John Doe @ Aug 1st 2008 2:54PM]

where did ya see the price??

i bet it will be cheaper than nikon's 18-200mm VR lens...tamrons are always cheaper

[jollyllama @ Aug 1st 2008 4:09PM]

This won't be at all expensive compared to Nikon and Canon glass. A higher zoom ratio means, almost automatically, lower quality images (on account of more elements) so they're not going to be marketing this to the same people as, say, an 80-200 2.8. The people they will be marketing this to are consumers, and few consumers would consider paying more than $700-$800 for a lens, which isn't that expensive in the lens world.

[jordan turpentine @ Aug 1st 2008 2:05PM]

if you have a dslr and care about image quality at all, which you do because you have a dslr, you won't want this. It will have a lot of barrel distortion. Also I can't tell the min aperture at higher ends might blow for anything not outdoors. If you have a dslr just take the time to switch lenses and get a prine or a couple lenses that have purpose and not one of these. This might be great for vacation pictures where you don't want to take pictures but you want to have your camera. Not as great for great photography.

[Iain @ Aug 1st 2008 2:04PM]

It took 4 posts before someone pointed out the obvious - that having made the outlay to purchase a D-SLR, no-one in their right mind would want a lens like this.

That was quicker than I expected, to be honest.

[bob @ Aug 1st 2008 2:12PM]

Tamron already produces a much-admired 18-250mm walkabout lens for the same cameras. Sure there are limitations with such a technology, but they have received praise for making the right sacrifices, and less total sacrifices that expected.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B000IBLMHQ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1217614148&sr=8-2

It gets nearly as good a review as Nikon's famous 18-200, which also has some noticeable limitations and costs twice as much money. Even a pro shooter just wants to take some holiday snaps at times, and doesn't want to carry the bag along. Not mention hikers or travelers who care about good photography but for whom it is not the purpose of their trip. These are awesome lenses for a lot of people.

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 2:16PM]

Not that I fully disagree with you jordan turpentine but:

This is meant mainly as a travel lens, much like the Nikkor 18-200 VR. I don't think Tamron is marketing this as a replacement for primes, or "pro-level" zooms. It cannot give perfect image quality. I'll wait to see photo samples before I pass judgment.

My principle concern is build quality. Overall I am not impressed with how Tamron builds lenses, but I'm spoiled on glass like my Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR, or my Nikkor 105 2.8 VR.

As for your comment about indoor/outdoor performance, this is easily compensated with proper flash technique, like bounce. I regularly shoot at f8 indoors when taking certain shots to ensure a wide depth-of-field.

I made the mistake of shooting wide-open when I started out taking photos. I bought a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 to do candid indoor shots, and shunned flash because I was not happy with my results. The depth of field proved too narrow, causing alot of blurred shots, or focus in the wrong place. That was many years ago. I since have learned proper flash technique and how to manage DOF.

I think there are a good deal of photographers who buy fast lenses for the wrong reasons, like shooting wide-open all the time to avoid flash use.

My point, is that stopping down is often necessary and a f6.3 on the tele-end is not necessarily a deal breaker for portability.

[haX0r @ Aug 1st 2008 2:55PM]

Agreed. It is also Cheaper than the 18-200MM Nikon VR but the quality will speak for itself.

[Jeff @ Aug 1st 2008 9:44PM]

Razor:

I think I see your point about this being a "travel" lens but I don't agree that that's a very good utility for a lens of this type. In fact, while I see the appeal of having a single lens that'll do everything, I agree with those that say that buying a DSLR in the first place is pointless if that's what you want.

What do you honestly need a 419mm equivalent lens for while traveling? Super-telephoto lenses are really only useful for specialized applications like wildlife or aviation photography. I have never, ever wished I had a longer telephoto lens while taking travel photos (and I travel a lot). If anything, I've wished my lens was wider.

Beginning photographers always have this idea that they need a super-telephoto to "get close". They don't realize that unless you're taking a shot of a very specific subject in completely clear weather with nothing in the background (or with a blurred background, which this lens won't be capable of with a 6.3 aperture on the long end), then your pictures are going to come out looking like crap. "Getting close" as a photographer means *physically* getting close - that's how you take good pictures. Close-up shots - unless they're human portraits - are always better with a wide lens.

More often than not, especially with a digital camera I find myself wishing I could get more field of view into my frame when traveling. It's not just about taking sweeping landscapes or cityscapes, it's also about taking shots of, say, a group of friends or family at a restaurant where you have limited space.

A lens that would go from, say, 7mm-55mm would be a lot more useful than one that does 18mm-270mm.

If you need a 270mm lens, then buy a real telephoto lens. Heck, I have one myself - the Sigma 135-400 (and that's not "equivalent" - those are the real numbers). Know how many times I've used it? Once.

Lenses of that length just aren't useful in very many situations.

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 10:48PM]

@ Jeff:

While I agree a 419mm zoom is not needed by everyone it is needed by some people. Image quality is only one of many concerns that a photographer may need to consider.

As weird as this might sound, it is better to get a poor quality photo of a memory than none at all. Some of us photogs, myself included, get obsessed with image quality, sometimes forgetting that capturing a particular moment can be more important than chromatic aberration or barrel distortion.

Regarding your comments of getting close it depends on subject and how you are composing your shot. I'm sure you already know this, and I'm not really saying it for your benefit. For others reading, remember you can fill a frame with a 50 mm lens by zooming with your feet. But if you are dealing with a wild animal that you happen to cross on vacation, the working distance of a longer lens will be plenty useful.

""Getting close" as a photographer means *physically* getting close - that's how you take good pictures. Close-up shots - unless they're human portraits - are always better with a wide lens."

Engadget isn't really the place for people to learn about composition. But your comments are your opinion. Not all situations require a physically close presence with your subject. Candids particularly don't lend well to this. It's why I bought my 70-200mm 2.8 VR... at least one of the reasons. As for the wide-lens comment, that again depends on the subject and composition you want. Trying to take a close-up shot of an ant with a wide angle is, quite honestly, looney tunes. I'm sure your are not advocating that.

It proves the point that you are not going to convey hard-and-fast rules of composition in a tiny discussion on a gadget site =P

"A lens that would go from, say, 7mm-55mm would be a lot more useful than one that does 18mm-270mm."

For you. So what's stopping you from getting the gear you need?

"If you need a 270mm lens, then buy a real telephoto lens. Heck, I have one myself - the Sigma 135-400 (and that's not "equivalent" - those are the real numbers). Know how many times I've used it? Once."

Just because you won't use a particular lens or technique doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't. Can you say Lomo? It might be plastic junk but some photogs have done amazing things with those cams.

"Lenses of that length just aren't useful in very many situations."

But they are for some. And that, at the end of the day, is the point.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Aug 1st 2008 1:56PM]

*cough*pentax*cough*

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 2:20PM]

I'm sure there's a good chance a Pentax mount will be announced... at some point.

[luzzio @ Aug 1st 2008 2:29PM]

Some Sony love plz.

[phanbouy @ Aug 1st 2008 2:47PM]

isn't that a bathroom cleaner?

[007 @ Aug 4th 2008 3:30AM]

So YOU'RE the guy who bought a Pentax....

[Josh @ Aug 1st 2008 1:59PM]

Impressive feat but the optical quality of a zoom of that length is just going to be atrocious. It would be an even greater feat if they were able to control all of the negative effects of a zoom of that extent.. I suppose we'll see how that turns out as it is tested.

[Liam @ Aug 1st 2008 2:44PM]

Like you, I'll be watching to see where they've made compromises... I'm not expecting a fantastic performance. I understand the appeal in terms of convenience, but if you're just going to keep one lens on your camera, you might as well get a compact.

Getting two lenses to cover the same range will be cheaper and will give you a better image quality. Generally speaking, of course.

Note to Engadget; where are the specs? I'd like to know the minimum aperture at each end, at least.

[Liam @ Aug 1st 2008 2:47PM]

Like you, I'll be watching to see where they've made compromises... I'm not expecting a fantastic performance. I understand the appeal in terms of convenience, but if you're just going to keep one lens on your camera, you might as well get a compact.

Getting two lenses to cover the same range will be cheaper and will give you a better image quality. Generally speaking, of course.

Note to Engadget; where are the specs? I'd like to know the minimum aperture at each end, at least.

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 2:54PM]

f3.5-6.3

It says it right on the lens ;)

[Liam @ Aug 1st 2008 2:57PM]

That comment would be really smart, if you could see that bit of the lens in the press photo. I get f/3....... and then it's too small.

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 3:16PM]

I'm sorry, didn't mean to offend. I'm used to what normal f stop marks look like, so i guess it's easier for me to tell despite it's blurriness.

[Tim @ Aug 1st 2008 3:18PM]

@ liam; i can read that easily enough, but if you still have doubts, the read link clears it up . . . I guess Razor did make a really smart comment.

[Joseph @ Aug 1st 2008 5:02PM]

Nikon's 18-200 VR is a great lens. It is not pro-glass by any means, but it kills any kit lens. It is entirely possible.

Besides primes are the way to go for perfect optics anyways.

[Jaws @ Aug 1st 2008 2:05PM]

I've used a 18-200 from Tamron on a Canon XTi on vacation in Europe... and it is a great travelling lens. Sure its not as capable as a specific lens... but fringing, and distortion was not all that bad considering the versatility of the lens. Zoom creep was horrible because of the weight of the thing though... the zoom lock was mandatory when not using the lens...
Overall they fit a great section of the market...a person wanting a single lens to cover a huge range of effect without having to pack a huge amount of glass around.

I for one welcome our huge new zoom overlord! (but... am holding out for a Sony/Minolta mount). ;)

[LukeCarroll @ Aug 1st 2008 2:09PM]

I don't think i could ever buy a lens with 6.3 is the maximum aperture zoomed in.

[Tim @ Aug 1st 2008 3:22PM]

Well then, you're clearly no Ansel Adams.

[SeamusD @ Aug 1st 2008 2:11PM]

Wow. What a bunch of shortsighted commenters. The Tamron 18-250 for the Minolta A mount is quite well reviewed (this one is just 20mm longer) for IQ, and it's always nice to be able to carry one lens around for less important shots. It certainly could be decent, and I'd want one.

[Adrian @ Aug 1st 2008 2:13PM]

This will go great with my D80!!

[Narcosynthesis @ Aug 1st 2008 2:13PM]

for those just upgrading from a P&S or superzoom, it could make an SLR into a convenient all in one solution, instead of relying on a bag of lenses to cover the range of a smaller camera, people where quality isn't always the highest priority

The proof will be in the quality, I would never expect it to rival the top prime glass, but if the quality is acceptable it could be a great solution for an all in one lens for things like holidays where you don't want to be faffing about changing lens the whole time.

[Jeff @ Aug 1st 2008 2:20PM]

it's only "28mm to 419mm" if you have a 1.5 crop factor... full-frame cameras will get the regular 18-270mm advertised.

sure, it's still 15x, but it's not as much of a telephoto as you get with smaller-sensor DSLRs.

thought that might be worth a mention.

[Charlie Taylor @ Aug 1st 2008 2:24PM]

Except this lens doesn't work on full-frame cameras. That's what Tamron's Di II moniker means, it has a reduced image-circle for smaller sensor cameras.

[Jeff @ Aug 1st 2008 2:34PM]

aha. good to know.

(engadget's commenting system is garbage. arg.)

[Kimleng @ Aug 1st 2008 2:43PM]

If you love severe vignette effects on your images, then the 5D would be a perfect candidate for this lens.

[John @ Aug 1st 2008 2:32PM]

In the digital age, barrel or pin cushion distortion are a moot point. There are some truly great software plugins for photoshop that make any picture taken with any lens totally distortion free, pretty much automatically. I sometimes like to use a Sigma 15 mm fisheye lens . When I go theough my usual process in PS, the images look like they were taken with a 14 mm distortion-free Canon that costs almost three times as much. The usual minute amounts of chromatic aberration can also be handled the same way.

BTW, who uses a 418 mm lens indoors? Most of the time If, I need that kind of zoom is outdoors in daylight (birds and boats). I usually have enough sunlight to stop the lens to f8. Of course, if you want to blur the background with some nice bokeh, well, get a prime 100 mm.

All in all, what matters with this kind of lens is sharpness. Others may have different needs but with proper PS processing for those "special shots", this lens looks to be great for travel.

[FotoGenetix @ Aug 1st 2008 2:37PM]

in my experience tamron lens quality has been garbage. i've yet to read a review on a fully satisfied tamron lens user, but the idea is cool

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 3:02PM]

I've read plenty of articles/posts/blogs from satisfied Tamron customers.

Satisfaction with lens is a complex matter. Consider how every camera lens differs in:

focal length
zoom range (if not a prime)
distortion
chromatic aberration
weight
dimensions
maximum aperture
minimum aperture
number of elements (and ghosting as a result)
minimum focus distance
filter size (and if the filter threads rotate with focus)
vibration reduction
manual focus method (M/A or just M)
internal or external focus
aperture rings or none

Every lens is a compromise of these characteristics. It is impossible to have everything in one package. As a photographer it is up to you to determine what features are most important; you cannot have it all.

You also cannot expect that everyone else is going to find the same group of characteristics as important as you do =|

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 3:04PM]

I forgot one big characteristic: cost =P

[MoreCowBell @ Aug 1st 2008 6:02PM]

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is compared to Nikon and Canon's $1k+ lenses. Read some reviews....
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

[David @ Aug 1st 2008 8:58PM]

"in my experience tamron lens quality has been garbage. i've yet to read a review on a fully satisfied tamron lens user, but the idea is cool"

Take a look at the Tamron 24-135mm. It's built like a tank and has outstanding image quality. It's only downfalls are high weight and non-USM autofocus which is thus slower and noisier than I'm used to with my other Canon USM glass.

[Derrick @ Aug 1st 2008 2:51PM]

You know a lens means business when they don't refer to it in mm but instead in x power.

[007 @ Aug 4th 2008 3:30AM]

The 15x is actually quite relevant. The 15x is not the maximum zoom, but is the difference between the shortest and longest focal length - ie 18mm (shortest length) x 15 = 270mm (longest length). The 15x is relevant because it's an extraordinary zoom range. The Nikon 70-200 is only a 3x lens (less actually), and the 80-400mm a 5x lens. The Tamron here is 270/18=15x. Obviously designing a huge range like this introduces all levels of "compromise" in your image. However, it will still (probably) be a good lens.

[Tom @ Aug 1st 2008 3:07PM]

Whoa.... when did misnaming focal lengths become a trend? A 28mm lens on a 35mm body is still a 28mm lens when it's on a digital APS-C body. Or a 4x5 body.

So... is this a 28-419mm lens misnamed for the digital consumer or an 18-270mm lens that only fits on digital bodies?

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 3:17PM]

If you look at the lens barrel it clearly says 18-270mm. In two places.