falcon1961 Loc: Ruskin, Florida

I currently use a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens, plus a Nikon 55-300mm lens, on a Nikon D-3000. During a recent adventure to Alaska, I did a lot of swapping between these two lenses. While visiting a camera shop at a mall in Seattle, I was introduced to the Sigma 18-200 and told about the Tamron 18-270. My question is: should I stick with the two Nikon lenses, and get used to swapping lenses - or should I purchase one of the "superzooms" from Sigma or Tamron? If I decide to go with a superzoom, which one should I consider? Is one better than the other and does the difference between 200, 250, 270 and 300 really make a difference?

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Does what you have do the job for you?

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

I used the 18-270mm Tamron on several shots today from the air show that I posted earlier

busted_shutter

You won't find that much difference at those focal lengths. Speed wise, not sure of the differences between lenses. And unless you really like to burn money, I can't see the value in switching.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

Am I right that what you want is one lens to do the job without having to constantly swap back and forth?? I had this issue today. I finally gave up and stayed with the 18-105. The 55-300 was slowing down my shutter speed in aperture priority and taking away my depth of field in shutter priority. I went back to the 18-105 to gain that back and will jus crop to get my tighter shot. If I had a fast 18-270 I could have gotten everything without the swap. But fast lenses cost big bucks.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Either "super-zoom" will give you no more than ⅔ stop advantage at mid-range. Here are the speeds and lengths on all four lenses. You will have to decide if they are worth the change:

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens
Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens for Nikon
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 II DC Lens for Nikon

crimesc324 Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

I have the 18-270 Tamron on my D-7000 and D-90. I rarely take it off the camera unless I am using the Sigma 50-500. It is the best all around lens I have ever used. I am very happy with it.

photog601 Loc: New York, NY

Hi Falcon,

I had that same problem with my Canon. Here is what I chose to do, buy a back up camera, Canon of course, and then I have one lens on that while I shoot with one of my zoom lens. This way I don't have to go back and forth changing the lens every time the scene changes. I just added the Sigma 150-500 because I love to shoot birds and it worked out just fine. I don't know if this is useful for you or not but it's my 2 cents. :-)

jingle

Put some research into the quality and spec. of these lenses, look at the reviews on "E-Photozine" for example. The greater the zoom range, the lower the quality of the image somewhere but it depends what you want to do with your images. They may be great for TV, internet and prints up to A4 but not for big prints, I don't know?
Joining a camera club can be useful as the members have a wide range of equipment and expertise.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

When I shot DX Nikon cameras, I bought a Nikon 18-200mm VR zoom. Though relatively heavy, I was pleased with its capability, zoom range, sharpness, etc. Compare this lens to the cheaper Tamron and Sigmas by reading various reviews. Although I prefer Nikon lenses, I use a Sigma 12-24mm for real estate work as the equivalent Nikon is (for me) cost prohibitive.

When I switched to FX, I immediately bought the Nikon 28-300mm VR (to replace the DX 18-200) but found that lens way too heavy to carry about so I bought a cheap little Nikon 28-200 too. Guess my point is that for a DX camera (like yours), I don't think you need the reach to 270mm. If you can't afford the Nikon, I'd recommend the Sigma. But, again, read the expert reviews and then make up your own mind.

cthahn

cthahn

All super zooms lose light. If you want to shoot at F5, F6 all the time for the sake of not having to change a lens, t hat is up to you.
Everyone is getting hooked on the super zoom craze. You get what you pay for, and what you think is a good deal now you will be unhappy with later.

Georgiatrim Loc: Atlanta

I use the Nikon 18-200 for just about everything.
The convenience of being able to go from a very wide angle 18mm to 55 or 130 or 200mm instantly without changing lenses (or having to carry two lenses) is pretty sweet.
I think the Tamron and Sigma are comparable lenses but have zero experience with either.
I first heard about this lens from Ken Rockwell. Here's a link. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm He gave it such a great review that I bought one (in 2005?) and have never regretted it. It is truly an amazing lens! Here are a couple of photos taken with it.
The only down side is that in very low light conditions it is not "fast" meaning that the maximum f:stop is only 3.5 at 18mm to 5.6 at 200mm. I find this rarely to be a problem. If it is , then I can change to a fixed 50/1:4 or whatever.

Glacier National Park


Mira Flores Peru


Wedding

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I second the idea of second camera. I use a Canon 450 D and I bought the second one from Keh and carry both bodies with me most of the time. I like to have same bodies so I do not have to familiarize my self with two sets of controls. As far as the Tamaron 18-270 unless you are going to shoot in bright light it is not a good choice. Slow focusing in low light or not much contrast. I very disappointed in it. I would use a kit lens over it.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I used to use the Nikon 18-200 lens on my crop sensor Nikon (a D200) and was happy with it. Then Nikon came out with an 18-300 which I snapped up immediately.

That's the only lens I use on my D200 and it's the lens I use whenever I travel because that's also my travel camera. I have a D3 and a D800 as well that take different lenses.

I strongly endorse the idea of moving to one lens, it keeps the sensor cleaner and prevents a lot of fussing.

But ... there is no free lunch. This zoom is convenient but also not perfect. For travel photography I've always found it fine but if you're into art, a prime lens is still the best.

As to Sigma versus Tamron versus Nikon I can't say much. I did have a friend who had a Tamron lens for a while and replaced it with a Nikon eventually. I personally had my run in with off brand lenses forty years ago and swore never to do that again. Sigma and Tamron do build excellent lenses apparently but when I review the specs it seems Nikon still comes out on top though sometimes marginally and always at a higher price.

With Sigma and Tamron too, read the fine print, sometimes the lens is incredibly cheap because it has no optical stabilizer and/or no built in focus motor. If you add those two to the lens, you'll find the savings tend to be more minimal than significant.