OregonCoaster

Hello All,
I have been taking photographs, seriously, for about a year. I have a Nikon D5500, it came with two kit lenses, a 18-55 and a 55-300. I have been thinking I would like to consolidate to one lens. The three I have been looking at are the 16-300 Tamron, 18-300 Sigma, and 18-300 Nikon. Any thoughts? Can I expect the same/better/worse image quality with one (of the three) lenses oppose to the two kit lenses mentioned. Or would I just be looking at the convenience of not changing lenses? Thanks for the input.

Susan689

I don't know about the Nikon lenses because I use a Canon Camera.. It came with a 18-55 lens... worthless... I just bought the Tamron 16-300 and I am in LOVE with it. It produces sharp, clear photographs even with moving objects. Have had it about a month now and have taken over 3000 photos with it. Only drawback is it's a heavy lens.

tresap23 Loc: Texas

I am a Canon user, and I have only one L series lens from Canon. It is an amazing lens and I don't regret purchasing it. But, I do get tired of the bulkiness and heaviness of it. I am looking in to getting a smaller zoom, maybe a 24-105. Just a good all around lens for travel and portraits. I will continue to use my larger lens, but probably not as much, So, my question is, do you need that range? 300mm? If you do then any of those lenses would be good. Just invest a little more if you get a Sigma, and go for the Art series. And the same with Tamron and Nikon, invest in the higher quality. But, if you use your camera for travel and need a good walk around lens, I'd go for smaller. There have only been a couple of occasions that I felt I needed the range, and that is for Moon shots and for birds that were a distance away. .

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

If you do decide on the Nikon be sure to get this one: https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-300mmf-3-5-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B008B14VAK/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1490359636&sr=8-4&keywords=18-300mm+nikon I's a better over all lens but more expensive and the best of the three you mentioned. For the price point you really can't go wrong with the Tamron or the Sigma. If you are using it heavily I'd bite the bullet and stay with the Nikon.

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

I have the same lens and Love it. Weight is not a problem at all. Tamron 16-300

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

This is not even a question. OME original manufactures equipment. And in this case as in all cases like this one, you bought the Nikon for a reason, did you not? Then buy the Nikon lens for the same reason you bought the camera. Cause it's the best option. I have beat my Nikon to death over the past three years, the Tamron could never take a beating a keep on ticking like my Nikon. There is a night and day difference between Nikon and third party glass. Let me riddle you this, if the Tamron and the Nikon were the same price, which would you buy? IF you take out the money OME wins every single time cause it will always be the better option. Shop quality not price. You get what you pay for. Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Lots of lens comparison sites.

http://lensvslens.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.diyphotography.net/this-website-helps-you-choose-your-next-lens-based-on-the-photos-you-like/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/

garypo

Just bought the Tamron 16-300 recently! it is awesome!

Allen D S

In my humble opinion, there are only a few Nikon lenses that are actually worth their significantly higher price. The third party manufacturers are really stepping up their game. My advice is make sure the lenses you buy are actually worth the purchase price, regardless of the cost.

Shutterbug61 Loc: Nazareth, PA

I love my Tamron 16-300 lens, and I'm not even bothered too much by it's weight. Produces wonderful, sharp photos.

FredCM Loc: Central Illinois

I bought the Sigma a few years ago because it's lighter than the Nikon. I leave it on the camera, it suits my needs, which are not demanding. Only criticism is at the short focal lengths there can be super noticeable pin cushion distortion. May or may not matter much depending on the subject and blah blah blah. I think it has one less element than the Nikon, the D5300 can still see in the dark with this lens. My Nikon 70-300 is better and not being a DX lens has a farther reach. But it's heavy sucker, and the effective short focal reach is 105mm. I'll leave it to others to debate the veracity of that 105mm stuff.

DStone Loc: Outside Winston-Salem, NC

The kit lenses are a wonderful value, but, if you buy the 16-300, you'll probably never touch them again because the image quality is so much better (actually, with any of the lenses you mentioned). The Tamron is my "walk-around" lens and I highly recommend it for that purpose. Down the road, add a fast nifty-50 and a real macro (the 16-300 isn't quite a macro) and you'll be well-equipped for most situations.

But (!!) be aware of a couple things. All similar lenses share the same inherent problems with CA and distortion ( the Tamron is as good or better than most). The good news is Lightroom has a lens profile for the 16-300 and does a very good job of removing CA before you even see it. And, if you opt to shoot jpeg, your Nikon will do a wonderful job of correcting almost everything in-camera. For RAW, you'll need some good software, like Lightroom. Also, think about the reach of the lens -- on your Nikon it's the equivilant of a 480mm. For me, that means hand-held shots (at that length) are out of the question, even with good image stabilization. Just bringing it up. Depending on your needs, a shorter zoom might be considered for the better quality or lower price.

Best of all, if the 16-300 ever gets smashed, lost, or stolen, you haven't lost the huge financial investment of "better" glass.

Good luck!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Lets look at folks who actually use all three lenses. B&H web site report the following reviews on these lenses. For Nikon 347 reviews, Tamron 169 reviews, Sigma only 40 reviews. Now, how well did folks rate these lenses, Nikon 18-300 78% of users reported 5 stars, Sigma 18-300 72% of users reported 5 stars, and last, Tamron 60% of actual users rated this lens 5 stars. Looks like Nikon wins again, not only in total sales, but by the users themselves. Cost, Nikon $996.95, Tamron $549.00, Sigma $499.00. Again, this was not a scientific study but rater what the consumers of these lenses thought of their lenses.

ColoPete

I have the Nikon 18-300 f3.5-6.3 which I originally purchased for my Nikon D5000. I now use it on a D7200. It basically lives on my camera, and I have used it for everything from sports and wildlife to landscapes to portraits, and have been very pleased with the shots it makes. It is a terrific walk-around and travel lens because it is fairly light. While I have other specialized lenses, I can and mostly do get by with this lens alone. Only shortcoming I have noticed is in low light, but even that is acceptable given the low-light capability of modern cameras.

Orca Loc: Little Egg Harbor, NJ USA

Tamron 16-300mm lens is a very good purchase.
I purchased the D5500 body, Tamron 16-300 and the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 lens at one time. Happy with these. The Nikon 18-300 is heavier and longer then the Tamron.
See the review below.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikkor_18-300_3p5-5p6g_ed_vr&products=tamron_16-300-3p5-6p3