And so it goes with super zooms, these wonderful lenses that go from pretty wide to very long. If you look at the reviews of any of them, some people claim horrible results, while others scratch their heads, because they’re just loving them to death.

My first superzoom was a Sigma 18-200 which I got about five years ago and I was blown away with what I could do with just one lens. Plus my shots were pretty darn sharp. The lens was more expensive then, than it is now. It’s still a good lens, it weighs a couple ounces less than a pound and if I only could have been satisfied, I’d have saved a bundle of money. Ah well. Anyway, I had an opportunity to try out the Tamron 18-200 as well back then, but I decided on the Sigma. It was a coin toss. At the time I thought both lenses would be good general, all purpose, walkabout lenses. They wouldn’t be as sharp or fast as primes and wouldn’t be as light as shorter zooms, but heck, one lens which went all the way from 18 to 200mm (okay 27 to 350mm in the real world), such a deal.

Both lenses were five star lenses as far as I was concerned, both still are, because they are what they are, a very good compromise. If you’re expecting a lens that will reach out across a dark night and grab a shot of lovers making out by the beach, then you don’t want these lenses, but if you’re looking for a good general walkabout lens, both will suit you and they won’t break your bank.

But they don’t have image stabilization and when Sigma came out with it, I had to have it. So I shelved the Sigma zoom I had, (thankfully I didn’t sell it) and bought the Sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma’s Optical Stabilizer worked great. I got sharper handheld shots in lower light, but they came at a price, almost half a pound. It doesn’t sound like much, eight ounces (7.6 to be exact), but try carrying it around on your shoulder all day long. I really noticed the difference, especially when I was shooting.

I probably wouldn’t have gone to that auction site with my fairly new lens, if it hadn’t been for Tamron. They came out with their Tamron 18-250 and I had to have it. A bigger reach, the heck with image stabilization. Not only could I go all the way from 27 to 375mm in the real world, but I got back a bit over six ounces, the lens was lighter. So now I had two super zooms, which was good, because I go out people shooting with my sister a lot.

So one would think I’d be satisfied, but when the Nikon 18-200 came out, well Nikon optics in a superzoom. I had to have it, so the Tamron went up for auction (because I just loved the Sigma, even though it didn’t reach as far). The Nikon lens focused faster, but not that much faster then the other two, had image stabilization and was faster at the long end and it took great shots, but it weighed more than the other lenses, coming in at a whopping 20 ounces and it was creepy, creepy, creepy and with no zoom lock. The other lenses had almost no zoom creep and they had a zoom lock, which I never used. Very annoying the zoom creep was, still, great shots from a great lens.

Satisfied, well for awhile, then came 2008 and the Tamron 18-270 with their VC version of image stabilization and up for auction went my expensive Nikkor lens. Yeah, I still hung on the my first super zoom, the Sigma. For sure the Nikkor was a five star lens, but a girl can’t justify more than two super zooms at any one time.

The Tamron lens actually weighed a fraction less than the Nikkor it replaced. It was a bit slower on the long end, was a bit stiff in the zooming, but easy to get used to and almost no, sometimes no, zoom creep and it has a lock. It’s just simply one heck of a lens. Sometimes it’s a bit slow to autofocus in lowlight, but still I think it finds its focus faster than I would, but not as fast as the Nikkor.

I should add here that Nikon has upgraded their 18-200 adding a zoom lock. I’ve played with one and not only have they added that zoom lock, but it doesn’t seem to creep nearly as much, but that could just be the copy I used. I should also mention that Sigma has come out with their Sigma 18-250 OS which I was lucky enough to use for a month. That is just one super fine lens. It focuses fast and I think it finds its focus better in low light than the Tamron 18-270. Also this new Sigma has a super quiet motor, though I’ve never really been bothered by the sound of a focusing lens.

By reading other reviews of these lenses, I’ve learned that they are all subject to zoom creep, so I suppose in the main, I’ve been lucky. All of these lenses are very good, at least all of the copies I’ve used. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend any of them. However, if you go with Nikon, you’re going to be paying an awful lot more. You get a slightly faster lens on the long end and you get Nikon quality, but Sigma and Tamron give quality as well and Tamron warranties their lenses for six years, so they’re pretty confident that they’re building a great product (and now they’re part of Sony).

So through my whole super zoom experience, which one do I wind up using the most? You guessed it, that Sigma I bought five years ago. Like the proverbial Timax, “It takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.” If the day is bright and I’m going people shooting it’s the one I put on my camera, because it’s light and it’s images are true.
Rating: 5 / 5

I’m no expert. I’m an enthusiastic hobbyist. But the pictures this lens produces on my Nikon D40 are just not as clear or as sharp as my Nikkor lenses. And for me that’s the bottom line.

Yes, the construction is solid. I found the focus to be quick enough. I did not find it to be noisier than the Nikkor. If felt good in my hand. Again, I really wanted to like this lens. But I don’t. I’m selling mine on Craigslist.
Rating: 3 / 5