Tamron 18-270 (Canon) vs. Tamron 16-300: I currently have the Tamron 18-270 which I purchased in 2009. Has anyone gone from this lens to the Tamron 16-300, and if so, was it worthy of...

Just Trying To Focus Loc: Jackson County, Michigan

I currently have the Tamron 18-270 which I purchased in 2009. Has anyone gone from this lens to the Tamron 16-300, and if so, was it worthy of the switch? I know the limitations of superzooms, just wondering if the image quality of the 16-300 is worse than the 18-270.

Sandy

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Just Trying To Focus wrote:

I currently have the Tamron 18-270 which I purchased in 2009. Has anyone gone from this lens to the Tamron 16-300, and if so, was it worthy of the switch? I know the limitations of superzooms, just wondering if the image quality of the 16-300 is worse than the 18-270.

Sandy

IQ of the SP 16-300mm is at least 2 generations better than the 18-270mm Tamron. The original 18-270 was quite a good lens, but its IQ was somewhat compromised when it was updated to the PZD model with a much smaller front element and smaller filter size.

The Tamron 16-300mm may be upgraded to their "G2" line in the near future, just as their 70-200mm and 10-24mm are being upgraded right now.

Just Trying To Focus Loc: Jackson County, Michigan

MT Shooter wrote:

IQ of the SP 16-300mm is at least 2 generations better than the 18-270mm Tamron. The original 18-270 was quite a good lens, but its IQ was somewhat compromised when it was updated to the PZD model with a much smaller front element and smaller filter size.

The Tamron 16-300mm may be upgraded to their "G2" line in the near future, just as their 70-200mm and 10-24mm are being upgraded right now.

I have the original (non PZD) model. It's not a terrible lens, and I think it is sharper on the 80D than my 70D, but it is a very noisy lens. My Tamron 150-600 seems near silent, but that 18-270 has always been loud. I am assuming the 16-300 is probably quieter.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Just Trying To Focus wrote:

I have the original (non PZD) model. It's not a terrible lens, and I think it is sharper on the 80D than my 70D, but it is a very noisy lens. My Tamron 150-600 seems near silent, but that 18-270 has always been loud. I am assuming the 16-300 is probably quieter.

Yes it is, the PZD motor system was developed to be quieter in operation. The sensor in the 80D is superior to the sensor in the 70D so should give slightly better results. Proper tuning of the lens will also optimize focus and result in sharper images.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

If you go to the website www.dxomark.com they have tested both of these lenses.
Depending on which version of the 18 to 270 mm you have (and what camera you are using it on) it gets a score of 10 or 11 or 13 (more or less out of 50).
The 16 to 300 mm, with the same variables, gets a score of 12 or 17 (also more or less out of 50).
In summary, neither of them are great lenses, but the newer lens is slightly better than the older lens.

kschwegl Loc: Orangeburg, NY

Just Trying To Focus wrote:

I currently have the Tamron 18-270 which I purchased in 2009. Has anyone gone from this lens to the Tamron 16-300, and if so, was it worthy of the switch? I know the limitations of superzooms, just wondering if the image quality of the 16-300 is worse than the 18-270.

Sandy

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I upgraded from the Tamron 18-270 to the 16-300. Very good lens. Very sharp and VC is much better. Image quality is better. (IMHO). Go for it.

Ken S.

Just Trying To Focus Loc: Jackson County, Michigan

Robert Bailey wrote:

If you go to the website www.dxomark.com they have tested both of these lenses.
Depending on which version of the 18 to 270 mm you have (and what camera you are using it on) it gets a score of 10 or 11 or 13 (more or less out of 50).
The 16 to 300 mm, with the same variables, gets a score of 12 or 17 (also more or less out of 50).
In summary, neither of them are great lenses, but the newer lens is slightly better than the older lens.

Good info! I'd never heard of dxomark. Thank you!

Just Trying To Focus Loc: Jackson County, Michigan

kschwegl wrote:

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I upgraded from the Tamron 18-270 to the 16-300. Very good lens. Very sharp and VC is much better. Image quality is better. (IMHO). Go for it.

Ken S.

Even if the image quality were only the same as the old 18-270, that extra focal length on both ends would be welcomed. Thanks for the input!

Sandy

jsktb Loc: Westerly, Rhode Island

The only other difference is that my 18-270 had a lot of lens creep and my 16-300 does not creep at all.

Eblong Loc: Colorado

I have always been disappointed with the 18-270's image quality, so I took advantage of an offer at a local camera shop and traded in the 18-270 for a 16-300 PZD. The difference was astounding. I really like the faster focusing, and I like the added zoom range, but what I really appreciate is the improved image quality. It is now on my camera (an 80D) constantly unless I need a prime or the monster 150-600.

Just Trying To Focus Loc: Jackson County, Michigan

Eblong wrote:

I have always been disappointed with the 18-270's image quality, so I took advantage of an offer at a local camera shop and traded in the 18-270 for a 16-300 PZD. The difference was astounding. I really like the faster focusing, and I like the added zoom range, but what I really appreciate is the improved image quality. It is now on my camera (an 80D) constantly unless I need a prime or the monster 150-600.

That's funny...I refer to my 150-600 as the "monster lens", too!

EdJames81

I never had the Tamron 18 - 270 so I can't comment on that. I did buy the Tamron 16 - 300 lens as an "all in one" travel lens for a trip to Austria last year and I have to say I was very pleased with it. The image quality is very good, and from what I have heard/read a big improvement on the 18 - 270 lens. One thing I can say is that you will not be disappointed with the image quality of the 16 - 300 at all.

Fotoserj Loc: St calixte Qc Ca

I bought the 16-300 as I bought my 7d mkII, basically for it's a tropicaliser and it's been on ever since now on two year and love it, IQ pretty good for my usage.

don4u Loc: Southern California

Other then the the extra zoom. My buddy loves it. He has the Canon 80 d. To say the least they are great lens. I owned the 18-270mm Tamron and the pictures were great. (Modestly spoken) But I wanted the extra 30mm. More power.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Eblong wrote:

I have always been disappointed with the 18-270's image quality, so I took advantage of an offer at a local camera shop and traded in the 18-270 for a 16-300 PZD. The difference was astounding. I really like the faster focusing, and I like the added zoom range, but what I really appreciate is the improved image quality. It is now on my camera (an 80D) constantly unless I need a prime or the monster 150-600.

Same here. There must have been more than a few "bad copies". I used one of the early ones about 6 months after it was released.