Sorry I'm a bit late to this conversation.

I bought this lens (PZD) for my holiday to the Greek Islands earlier this year. It struck me as a useful walk-around lens, cheaper than the Nikkor and with (then) a better range. Reviews suggested it was not as good as a Nikkor, but not too far short. And I didn't expect to use it much on a day-to-day basis.

What a huge disappointment. A handful (about 1%) of my shots were massively overexposed - far too much to recover. Plus, about a quarter of my shots were moderately overexposed - Apple Aperture made a decent job of correcting them, but still disappointing.

I considered returning the lens but I was outside the 'no-quibble return' period and I guessed proving the lens faulty would be an uphill task... So I simply took-it-on-the-chin.

I used the lens again last week (when I really needed the 270 end) but again, about one in four shots were overexposed.

Buyer beware!

wow, interesting looking lens, but a bit expensive.

I do not have one, but the tamron I had for use on my F3 came down with a bad case of fungus here in the Tropics, while the 3 Nikon lenses that I had were okay.

It may or may not have anything to do with the brand of lens and I will not condem Tamron for that, however just thought I would mention it for your consideration.

also, the 6.3 would worry me as you would need good lighting to use it zoomed in.

Learned my lesson, they are all stored in dry boxes with silica gel, and the ones that are not used anymore are now stored in vacum bags with silica gel.

Hello,

I'm looking into an upgrade from my Nikkor 18-105 to either the old Tamron 18-270 VC or the new Tamron 18-270 VC with PZD drive. Not implying that it would be a better lens than the Nikkor, but looking for the added walk-around lens range benefit.

Anyone out there with this combo and willing to share the good and the bad?