Tamron Announces 18-400mm All-In-One™ Zoom..... Sort Of

[Trovador]

Wow, had a 18-270 like 8 years ago which I gave to my wife and haven't looked at these "all in ones" lenses since...didn't even know that a 16-300 existed...if IQ is at least acceptable, paired with a 40mm pancake would be great for travel. Not easy carrying a wide angle, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400 for traveling.

 

[SkynetTX]

... enthusiast photographers who are picky about image quality and recognize the limitations of a super zoom ...

Have to agree. The bigger the zoom range, the lower the image quality. If you can have only one lens with you it's better to have a 24-70 or similar general lens.

 

[FramerMCB]

... enthusiast photographers who are picky about image quality and recognize the limitations of a super zoom ...

Have to agree. The bigger the zoom range, the lower the image quality. If you can have only one lens with you it's better to have a 24-70 or similar general lens.

How about Canon's venerable 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS? Really a pretty good lens for an all-arounder. But not very lightweight or small. And not super zippy on the autofocusing like most all of the newer, big L zooms.

 

[magarity]

Not easy carrying a wide angle, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400 for traveling.

Are those the right comparison? This Tamron is EF-S not EF. So would it be better to compare its quality and weight to dragging around the base set of Canon EF-S: 10-18, 18-55, 55-250 which make an easily carry-able travel set? Then this thing's bonus is from 250-400 which Canon for some reason does not do in EF-S.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Not easy carrying a wide angle, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400 for traveling.

Are those the right comparison? This Tamron is EF-S not EF. So would it be better to compare its quality and weight to dragging around the base set of Canon EF-S: 10-18, 18-55, 55-250 which make an easily carry-able travel set? Then this thing's bonus is from 250-400 which Canon for some reason does not do in EF-S.

I would like an EF-S 250-400mm that is small, lightweight and inexpensive.
However, our friend Neuro has often explained to us that saving glass on EF-S lenses over 300mm would not be significant due to the size of the front element.
It would be a Canon alternative for those who do not want to risk the Sigma 100-400mm.

 

[aceflibble]

Have to agree. The bigger the zoom range, the lower the image quality. If you can have only one lens with you it's better to have a 24-70 or similar general lens.

Sounds like you've never actually needed 400mm, if you think 70mm can even remotely compete.

The kind of thing people will want 18-400 for absolutely can not be touched by a 24-70 in any way. If you have limited space and yet you need that long reach, and you're on an APS-C body where the 24-70's wide angle also won't be particularly significant, that 24-70 really isn't even an option.

How about Canon's venerable 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS? Really a pretty good lens for an all-arounder. But not very lightweight or small. And not super zippy on the autofocusing like most all of the newer, big L zooms.

That's basically what we're seeing here: an evolution of the super-zooms which already exist. This should be smaller, lighter, quicker, and expands the zoom range. Even if the very widest and longest ends of the range aren't optically great, you could treat it as a newer 28-300 with the rest of the range as a 'bonus'. (Which is how I treat all zooms, really, as no zoom on the planet is absolutely perfect through the entire range; there's always at least one point where it's weaker and I try to avoid using.)

Just as once-upon-a-time we had the 35-105 which became the 24-105 and the 80-200 became the 70-200, this lens is (at least on paper) taking that 28-300 and making the same step forward.