Mulling the value of 16-300 mm lens
Dec 8, 2016 15:25:41 #
dsnoke
Loc: North Georgia, USA
Hi everyone,
I've now got the Tokina 11-16 mm, Nikkor 18-105 mm and Nikkor 55-300 mm lenses for my Nikon D7100. I do a lot of hiking, often 5 to 6 hours on the trail, and I'd like to both shrink the size of and lighten the weight of what I carry. I rarely haul the wide-angle lens, but I often carry and use the other two. I'm thinking I might buy the Tamron 16-300 or Nikkor 18-300 lens to eliminate one lens and lighten the load just a bit. I have not yet tried either lens I'm considering, but I will in the next few months. In the meantime, I'm interested in opinions and actual experience with these or equivalent lenses on an APS-C sensor. You can see my current stuff at http://www.seven-oaks.net/dickspics.
Thanks.
I've now got the Tokina 11-16 mm, Nikkor 18-105 mm and Nikkor 55-300 mm lenses for my Nikon D7100. I do a lot of hiking, often 5 to 6 hours on the trail, and I'd like to both shrink the size of and lighten the weight of what I carry. I rarely haul the wide-angle lens, but I often carry and use the other two. I'm thinking I might buy the Tamron 16-300 or Nikkor 18-300 lens to eliminate one lens and lighten the load just a bit. I have not yet tried either lens I'm considering, but I will in the next few months. In the meantime, I'm interested in opinions and actual experience with these or equivalent lenses on an APS-C sensor. You can see my current stuff at http://www.seven-oaks.net/dickspics.
Thanks.
Dec 8, 2016 15:35:36 #
Robeng
Loc: California
dsnoke wrote:
Hi everyone, br br I've now got the Tokina 11-16 ... (show quote)
Nice work, if price is not an option I would get the Nikon. It's better built and holds it's resale value better than the Tamron.
Rob
Dec 8, 2016 15:39:24 #
I might look at the focal length of the photos I'm taking now, I recently took a trip, had my 17070 mounted, 55-250 and a couple of short primes, 98% of the shots were on the 17-70 and the rest on the 55-250, scrapped all the 55-250 shots too, I could have left everything else home and traveled with just the 17-70, didn't need the extra body either, did use the extra battery though, review what and how often you are using an item , in a car i one thing, hiking is another, if your not using it why carry it, Bob.
Dec 8, 2016 16:24:19 #
dsnoke
Loc: North Georgia, USA
I appreciate the responses. I have thought about what I shoot most and the relevant focal length range. When hiking, I most often shoot at focal lengths under 100 mm with the 18-105 mm lens. But then we get to the top or in the open and have eagles or other hawks to shoot, or we get to waterfalls that are a ways off. I then have to quickly swap lenses, and that's a pain. I'm thinking that the single 16/18-300 lens would let me adjust much faster. I use the U1/U2 settings on the camera to let me change setups fast, and that is really slick. Have I just answered my own question? Possibly. :)
Again, thanks for the replies.
Again, thanks for the replies.
Dec 8, 2016 18:27:35 #
I bought a Sigma 18-300mm, last year, as a single lens travel solution. I haven't used it much, but it's been handy the few times I have, and on a positive note, I've been fairly impressed with the image quality. for the cost, I feel it's a worthwhile investment. I shoot a Canon 7D2, which can "get heavy" over the course of a day, and the combination is a more pleasant carry than the 24-105 Sigma that I use as an everyday general purpose lens.
Dec 8, 2016 19:57:36 #
When traveling or hiking, unless the situation warrants something different, I always use a Nikon 18-300 as my universal lens. When hiking, it allows me to quickly capture a deer at long distance without having to change lenses and miss the shot. Also, swapping lenses on a trail is an invitation to get dust into the camera which is something I try and avoid.
Dec 9, 2016 06:47:03 #
Jeffcs
Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina
If hiking for hiking, do you shoot in raw, if not than instead of getting a lens think about getting a bridge camera with the quality some have you'd shed a pound or two that said if your hiking to get to photo locations than carry the best glass you can
Dec 9, 2016 07:06:22 #
Mull all you'd like. The best way to decide is to rent one for a couple of days. Use it and evaluate it. That way you'll have the only opinion that really will guide you, yours.
--Bob
--Bob
dsnoke wrote:
Hi everyone, br br I've now got the Tokina 11-16 ... (show quote)
Dec 9, 2016 07:19:01 #
IMHO, I have used the Tamron 16-300 and also the Sigma 18-300. After a days of shooting, I ended up returned both of them, at different times. I have concluded that those lenses are trying to do too much and the image quality suffers. If you need the reach, I have found that the 70-300mm lens does a much better job. Good luck.
Dec 9, 2016 08:15:36 #
I've had the Nikkor 18-300 since it came out in 2012. I bought for my D5100 and use it on my D7100 now. I love it. I don't have to change lenses like I used to. It seemed like I always had the wrong lens on the camera. No longer. The other advantage is that your sensor stays cleaner because you're not always exposing it to dust. Good luck with it.
Michael
Michael
Dec 9, 2016 08:16:36 #
I have the Tamron 16 to 300 mm on my Nikon 7100 in my D 500 it's a good walk around lens but you sacrifice A bit of quality but if you shoot with a decent f-stop .... i get very good pictures with it there are a lot of great lens out there but there longer and heavier I don't think the Tamron 16 to 300 is a bad choice for a good walk around Lens i use it all the time but it's not my only Lens
Dec 9, 2016 08:26:02 #
danoliver
Loc: South Central Kentucky
If you get the Nikon 16-300, get the 5.6 lens instead of 6.3. Since getting my 16-300, it stays on my camera 98% of the time as my walk around lens and really like the pics I get with it.
Dec 9, 2016 08:53:20 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
dsnoke wrote:
Hi everyone, br br I've now got the Tokina 11-16 ... (show quote)
If it was me, and considering the hiking, I would go with the 18-200 VRII lens MINT off ebay. This lens is light and would give you a 27-300 lens on your 7100. The weight is what is important here. That Nikon lens is one of the sharpest lenses out their today.
Dec 9, 2016 09:00:58 #
Robeng wrote:
Nice work, if price is not an option I would get the Nikon. It's better built and holds it's resale value better than the Tamron.
Rob
Rob
Absolutely agree. The Tamron is a pretty good lens and the extra 2mm on the wide end is sometimes useful, but the Nikon 'feels' better and definately holds it's value better. I have found this type of lens to be extremely useful when hiking, not only because you can leave your other lenses at home and save weight, but most hiking is done in dirty, sometimes windy conditions where it's not a good idea to remove your lens and expose the sensor to dust & dirt. I have never regretted buying my 18-300 and it is on my D7200 whenever I go hiking. I think you will feel the same after trying it.
Dec 9, 2016 09:01:25 #
I started out with the Nikon 18-200 and liked it for ease of use and quick focus. It was originally on my D70, then D5100, D300s and finally D7000. In too many cases it wasn't wide enough and didn't have the reach I wanted in a walk around. I purchased the Tamron 16-300 and it satisfies the range issues.
BUT, it doesn't not focus as well in low light conditions and at small at apertures. I am forced to focus manually and that is tough with modern Nikons. (I sure do miss the split image)
I suggest as others have that you rent first.
BUT, it doesn't not focus as well in low light conditions and at small at apertures. I am forced to focus manually and that is tough with modern Nikons. (I sure do miss the split image)
I suggest as others have that you rent first.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.