Nikon 18-140 VS Tamron 18-270: I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100) I'm doing...

jjenk

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

Jim Bob

jjenk wrote:

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

According to DXOmark, the Nikon is rated higher.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

jjenk wrote:

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

try to rent the tamron and see if you like it before you buy it.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I think you will be happy with the reach and image quality

jjenk wrote:

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

jjenk wrote:

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

I would highly recommend looking at the much newer Tamron 16-300mm, its far better than the 18-270mm ever was, and right now has a very attractive rebate offer on it.

MTG44 Loc: Corryton, Tennessee

I traded my Tamron 18-270 for Sigma 18-300 with Camera Cottage and am very happy.The Sigma is sharper.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

jjenk wrote:

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

The only solution -

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I have a D7200 and had the same thoughts. I have the 18-140 but wanted a bit more reach so I bought the Tamron 16-300. It definately has more reach. I used to have the 18-270 but sold it because I found the corners very soft. The 16-300 is much better but after side by side comparisons of shots with the Tamron & Nikon, I sold the Tamron. I found that the Nikon is enough sharper that even after cropping, my pics were cleaner with the Nikon. The Tamron is a decent lens, especially considering the hugh focal range. But if you need more reach, keep the 18-140 and add the Nikon 70-300 vr to your bag.

larryzplace Loc: Elk Grove Village Illinois

jjenk wrote:

I am close to trading a Nikon 18-140mm, AFS, f/3.5-5.6 G, ED, DX VR for a Tamron AF 18-270mm, f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, AF. (For use on a D7100)
I'm doing this for the added reach; but am I sacrificing quality or are there any negatives? Thank You!

I have to agree with MT... I have the 16-300 on my D7200 and rarely take it off... Very nice results :)

jjenk

Thank you all for your insight. I'm researching the websites suggested now to make a final decision. Very helpful.

pdsdville Loc: Midlothian, Tx

I had major problems with excessive lens creep. Sent it back for repair three times plus once because of mis-assembly. The last time back I requested a new lens and Tamron complied. New lens had to be sent back for the same reason. I gave the lens to my son and bought a Sony 18-250. Much happier. Many people I've talked to had the same problem. I think that the Tamron 16-300 may have solved the problem, or so I've heard. Go with the Branded one. Good Luck!

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

I have both and the Nikon is definitely sharper. It has the advantage of having to cope with only half the focal length so that probably helps. I found the Tamron wasn't sharp at the long end and 'infinity' really wasn't infinity. It had to be backed off on the focus to put the object in focus. Also didn't like having to put the lens in MF to do this. I keep a Nikon 18-200 on my 7100 almost all the time now. Cured all the above complaints, especially full time MF.

wetreed

I am a huge fan of Tamron lenses, but the Nikon 18-140 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. If you really need more reach I would go with the Tamron 16-300 or the Tamron 18-400.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

wetreed wrote:

I am a huge fan of Tamron lenses, but the Nikon 18-140 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. If you really need more reach I would go with the Tamron 16-300 or the Tamron 18-400.

Do you realize you just responded to a thread that's was played out 3 years ago? Your suggestion to the OP is probably a bit too late to be of any assistance.

wetreed

mwsilvers wrote:

Do you realize you just responded to a thread that's was played out 3 years ago? Your suggestion to the OP is probably a bit too late to be of any assistance.

Yes I do realize it. Pardon me for voiceing my thoughts. My post may not have any value to you,but someone else be might be interested.