Sharp Super Lens- Tamron, Sigma or Nikon
Jun 29, 2014 13:32:16 #
Thank you. I have just read your review and this is what I looking for. I know know super zooms are limited but I have other better lenses for portraits, landscapes, etc. I am just looking for the best superzoom for the family moments or times when I just don't want to drag it all around. Thank you again!
ProfLarry wrote:
I have used the Nikon 18-200 VR for years as my wa... (show quote)
Jun 29, 2014 13:32:47 #
Thanks. That is what I have heard. Thank you!
wilpharm wrote:
I really dont have much to compare it to but have been using the Tamron 18-270 as my everyday lens for a long time
I am not a pro by any means but its overall a pretty darn good lens
only issue is lens creep..
Jun 29, 2014 13:33:02 #
Thank you!
RonM13 wrote:
My wife and I use the Tamron 18x270 and feel that it does a great job.
Jun 29, 2014 13:33:17 #
THank you!
Turbo wrote:
From my several photoclubs: The TAMRON 18-270 is the favorite.
Jun 29, 2014 13:36:28 #
Just looking for information about super zooms from individuals that have experience with them, not looking to discuss the pros and cons of using one of my lenses and working on my skills with what I have. Thank you anyway.
amehta wrote:
Since none of these is particularly small, perhaps you could simply carry one of your lenses, and get the best shots you can with that lens?
I think we too often try to photograph everything, which is impossible anyway, and miss seeing a lot in the process.
I think we too often try to photograph everything, which is impossible anyway, and miss seeing a lot in the process.
Jun 29, 2014 13:44:42 #
alissaspieces wrote:
have a D7100 and I like to take portraits, landsca... (show quote)
I was in the same situation, I ended up getting the 28-300mm FX it gives me 42-450mm equiv. I got a great copy used for $750 and since it is an FX you are using the sweet spot, it does not get as soft on the high and low ends as the DX wide range zooms.
Jun 29, 2014 14:00:24 #
since I don't mind changing lenses in the field, I do with 2 lenses. a 16-80mm and a 100-300mm. they are really good lenses and with care take pictures that most here would be satisfied with.
Jun 29, 2014 14:04:19 #
The nikon one? Thank you. I am planning on getting an 11-16 to do super wide and I already have the 18-50 but do you think I will miss out on having it super wide on the all in one? Thanks!
skiman wrote:
I was in the same situation, I ended up getting the 28-300mm FX it gives me 42-450mm equiv. I got a great copy used for $750 and since it is an FX you are using the sweet spot, it does not get as soft on the high and low ends as the DX wide range zooms.
Jun 29, 2014 14:05:35 #
Thank you. I have lenses that cover me from 18-300 but I am not looking to change on more ordinary days or when I am just taking pics of the family or out for the day. For my more serious photography needs then I will always change to a lens that is more appropriate to the situation. Thank you again.
bull drink water wrote:
since I don't mind changing lenses in the field, I do with 2 lenses. a 16-80mm and a 100-300mm. they are really good lenses and with care take pictures that most here would be satisfied with.
Jun 29, 2014 14:13:17 #
Teacher
Loc: Alabama
I use a Sigma 18-250 OS. Light, powerful and sharp at the long end.
alissaspieces wrote:
Thank you. I have just read your review and this is what I looking for. I know know super zooms are limited but I have other better lenses for portraits, landscapes, etc. I am just looking for the best superzoom for the family moments or times when I just don't want to drag it all around. Thank you again!
Jun 29, 2014 14:38:37 #
alissaspieces wrote:
The nikon one? Thank you. I am planning on getting an 11-16 to do super wide and I already have the 18-50 but do you think I will miss out on having it super wide on the all in one? Thanks!
Yes the Nikon version. I have the 18-140mm and a 35mm 1.8 but dont find that I need the wide below 42mm. I use the 300-450 range much more. I do carry the small light 35mm 1.8 for low light but I rarely need to take the 28-300 off.
Jun 29, 2014 15:52:26 #
I have the 28-300 3.5-5.6 Nikon, use it on my d3200 and my d800, has been a good lens!!
alissaspieces wrote:
have a D7100 and I like to take portraits, landsca... (show quote)
Jun 29, 2014 15:52:35 #
Is the 18 - 300 much better than the 18 - 270? The 270 is much less expensive.
I have been flirting with purchasing a lens in this range for my Canon 70D, but my prior experience with a Canon 18-2?? (bracket creep and not sharp) have discouraged me. I know you can't expect the quality of an L Lens, but I don't want to be disappointed again.
I have been flirting with purchasing a lens in this range for my Canon 70D, but my prior experience with a Canon 18-2?? (bracket creep and not sharp) have discouraged me. I know you can't expect the quality of an L Lens, but I don't want to be disappointed again.
Jun 29, 2014 16:45:06 #
I mentioned the Nikon 18-200 VR previously here is two images taken with that lens and a Nikon D300. Good luck with your quest.
Front of a house
High water
Jun 29, 2014 16:52:05 #
alissaspieces wrote:
have a D7100 and I like to take portraits, landsca... (show quote)
Hands down, the Nikon 18-300!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.