Marilia Loc: Dallas, TX

Does anyone out there have an "hands on" on the Tamron AF 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD lens or know one way or another the pros and cons on this lens?

I have a Canon T5i with an EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens that I would be probably selling (the lens) when I find another one with more zoom for a reasonable price!
Thanks in advance!

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

There have been a few posts of images from Nikon and Canon users with this lens here that look pretty good. I'd use the Search feature at the top of the page and look for "Tamron 16-300" and see what you come up with. I like the price better on the Nikon side than the Nikkor and am waiting for the soon to be available Sigma in the same class before diving in myself.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Here's a link to some pictures:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-212395-1.html

Marilia Loc: Dallas, TX

Thanks for the reply and the link, Mr PC! I'm also watching the new Sigma lens too... :lol:

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

http://www.tamron-usa.com/B016special/lineup/b016/index.html

you probably have already been here!!

photon56 Loc: North America

I like the macro capabilities of the Tamron lens.

Tamron 16-300mm, 1/100sec, f/8.0, ISO 640, 300mm, handheld

(Download)

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

What camera was this shot with?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The 18-135 was designed specifically to work with the t5i. Its overall image quality is better then the Tamron 16-300. However, if you must have a single, do it all lens, then by all means get it. The Tamron is not a bad lens, just a relatively mediocre one. This is really not an indictment of the Tamron 16-300. Its not any worse, and perhaps even a bit better than most other super zooms. Super zooms all suffer, to one degree or another, from a variety of distortions and issues including barrel distortion, pin cushioning, vignetting, chromatic aberration, hunting for focus in very low light, and finally image softness, especially towards the edges. In it's favor, this lens goes from a 35mm equivalent on your camera of 25.6mm to 480mm, which is pretty fantastic. For lots of people the lower image quality is barely noticeable. I personally find super zoom image quality and distortion too limiting. My son now has my Tamron 18-270 PSD, and my wife has my Canon 18-200mm. Both are quite happy with their lenses. Only you can decide whether the range or the image quality is more important to you.

On a final note, I mentioned that the 18-135 STM was designed to work with your camera body, specifically to allow smooth and absolutely quiet auto focus for video. If you plan on using your camera for videos either forget the Tamron, or get the Tamron and still keep the 18-135. For video the 18-135 will be significantly and very noticeably better.

Edit: By the way, the image above may be a good example. 300mm is nice to have, but the image of the turtle is very soft, even in the center and there is purple fringing. Of course this is a macro shot that was hand held so some of the softness can be excused a bit. In any case, it's a very useful lens for vacation and holiday snaps. Just don't expect the highest quality results.

photon56 Loc: North America

Nikon D7100