bbrowner Loc: Chapel Hill, NC

Continuing my question from a week or so ago...

Have Nikon d7100 with 35mm prime lens and 55-200mm zoom. Does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 16-300mm lens? Thinking it could replace the 55-200. (50th anniversary present.)

Thanks....

Barry
barrypictures.com

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

I have a Tamron 16-300 lens for my Nikon D7100 and I am very happy with it. I do not make 30 or 40 inch prints. At this point it is a great walk around lens. The 16-300 is about 3 to 31/2 inches collapsed. At its full extension the actual focal length in 35 mm terms is 450 mm. I find that a tripod is extremely helpful for clear images at full extension. I am certain that nit pickers will use laboratory tests to show that Canon and Nikon dedicated lenses might be a little sharper etc. However, for the price this is a very good lens. The macro is not a true macro; on the other hand, it is very useful in closeups when on hikes. I just returned from some hikes in the North Cascades and Olympic National Forest. I had this lens on my camera all the time. Both the camera and lens are better than I am. A professional might have not been as satisfied as I but I doubt a professional would be unable to make terrific pictures with this lens.

photon56 Loc: North America

I am extremely please with my 16-300mm lens. I replaced a 18-55mm and a 55-300mm and haven't looked back. This lens is mostly on my camera at all times. I do wildlife and architectural shots. It is very versatile and I can get my photos to come out crisp and clean.

LaurenT Loc: Northern California

I have mine on a Canon 70D, and I agree with your assessment 100%. :thumbup: :thumbup:

Jahawk Loc: Rhode Island

I believe the lens is on sale right now with $100.00 Rebate