Quoted By:
Testing my Tamron 18-200mm against my Nikkor 70-300mm. Both shot at 200mm, both f.6.3, 8000 iso, auto focus, APS-C, just from across my room. Lazy unscientific test.
Apparently not all 200mm's are created equal, nor are all f/6.3s. I figured this Tamron 18-200 wasn't that great and that's definitely what /p/ said but I didn't expect the focal length to be this different. At the same focal length and f stop, Nikkor is a lot closer, its depth of field is noticeably narrower, and the image overall is sharper. Also autofocuses a lot faster. I thought it felt like the Tamron's full zoom was a little weak. Nice to see it confirmed here. And yeah I checked the exifs of both photos, both say 200mm.
The lens is weird. It's almost like from 135mm to 200mm, the lens doesn't move at all when I turn it. Just a loose turn that doesn't feel like it's moving any glass, and it hardly zooms in at all. Hell, for all I know its defective.
Just thought it would be interesting to test the compromises of cheap all-around zoom lenses. I always hear about them but I wanted to compare. Also it's not in this photo but the bokeh at 200mm is weirdly warped. Will be returning this Tamron.
