Comparing the Nikon 18-300mm lens to the Tamron 16-300mm, has anyone compared the two? The price difference is over $300.00
394029
I bought the Tamron !6~300 and after 2 days testing sent it back, very disappointing, have not tried the Nikon.
394030
agreed with the sentiments above. I have purchased the tamron 16-300, as well as the nikon 18-300 f6.3 and this lense. The difference with the nikon is noticeable. Not only in picture quality. But also in distance. the 300 on the tamron doesn't reach where the nikon does. granted the nikon 18-300 @300 doesn't match the nikon 55-300 @ 300 either. Also the movement, the tamron is much stiffer than the nikon options. A Great all day lense. Im working into prime lenses, and high quality fixed aperture lenses, but for now I still use this as my main glass.
394031
I love the Nikon Lens. I've learned that Nikon makes the glass for all of there lenses. The Nikon is a better lens in my opinion and you get what you pay for. You definitly should buy a UV filter to protect all of your lenses.
1264580
Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's... » Read More Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! « Show Less
1163548
Uff... to much i will said... this are one of the finest cheapers lenses that you will find, the one thing that you must have in mind is that this is a f1.8 so that allows to get a lot more light meanwhile the 18-55 is a 3.5 and that my friend on the DLSR world is a big diference.
1825169
I agree as well with the others. I own the Tamron and love the lens. Very sharp and works great for general use but the 50 I have heard is a great lens. If you don't mind using your feet instead of a zoom you should be good starting with the prime.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
1762795
I'm a previous owner of Tamron's 18-270 vc. The 18-270 was annoyingly noisy when set to auto focus. The benefits of upgrading to Tamron's 16-300 are increased range and quiet pizzio drive. &#538;amron's 16-300 is my new go to all around lens.
2058086
I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports... » Read More I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. « Show Less
433202
I got the 40mm Micro lens over the 35mm and I am really happy with the purchase. It cost about $80 more but it does more. That being said, I have the 35mm on the wish list even though it will be horribly redundant. The 40mm Micro has so drawbacks but it does get you in close. I don't know how the 35mm could be sharper but lots of reviews comparing the two indicate it can be depending on subject matter. This is probably a topic people make themselves crazy with so I will probably buy some peace for $200 by getting the 35mm lens sooner than later.
2096569
the only differences between the two lenses are: 1) focal length and 2) price. The 18-300 is approx. $150 more than the 18-200. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, and can afford the higher price, I would definitely go with the 18-300 for the longer reach. However, I personally own the 18-200 and love it for 98% of the shooting I do
681824
Tamron makes a model for the Sony ... I would recommend that you check their website. By the way, I still love my lens !
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
1762798
I'm a previous owner of Tamron's 18-270 vc. The 18-270 was annoyingly noisy when set to auto focus. The benefits of upgrading to Tamron's 16-300 are increased range and quiet pizzio drive. Țamron's 16-300 is my new go to all around lens.
410989
Thanks for the information. I was using a Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walk around travel lens and loved it until it got stolen in an airport! :-( Now I'm in the market for a new lens and I'm leaning towards the Tamron. I've used their lens in my past photography life with my old AE-1 Program and I'd LOVE the 18-270 if I can swing the $$$. I'm hunting eBay as well, as that's where I got my 28-135 and had NO problems with it at all!
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
650645
I have both lenses... the Canon 400 prime is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. I would however never use it with a converter... you will increase the f stop to much, at least for me. I would not replace the 400 prime with the Tamron. If I was buying new I would say its a toss up. The Tamron is soft wide open. The 400 cropped gives better results at least for me. I would however take the Tamron over the older Canon 100-400 zoom.
1114919
If you are really talking about the 18-300mm the older model is bigger and heavier with the same optic specs. The new one, $100 cheaper, has very good image quality and does macro close ups very well. This lens supplements my 150-500mm lens. This lens is 67mm and does not come with a hood. I am very happy with this lens
1609778
Good timing on your question, because DPReview.com JUST posted their review last week on that lens:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/Optically it appears to be quite good. AF is slow and noisy, but for 694 bucks at Amazon you can't beat the price if budget is a concern.