jrcarpe Loc: Jacksonville,AR

I would like to get others opinions of the Tamron 16/300 lens for Canon cameras.

Thanks for your response.

Cheapshot Loc: California.

I purchased a Tamron 28-300 MACRO 20 years ago and it failed after about 13 months of lite use. Tamron wanted $100 to fix it and I declined. It is now a paper weight on my desk. Since then I have purchased only Canon "L" glass.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If you aren't too critical on sharpness, and prefer convenience over image quality, then it should be fine. Personally, I would have nothing to do with it.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

It is a nice do it all lens for travel and general duty for those who are not particularly critical about overall image quality and sharpness. Most people will probably find this optic very acceptable. However, it has some of the limitations of all superzooms including softness at the frame edges and significant softness at 300 mm.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

I bought one for my girlfriend several years ago. She is interested in photographing her dog, other family members and the occasional landscape or bird on long drives. She is uninterested changing the lens often or post-processing her images and prefers to let the camera do that for her. She has been happy with this lens as it does all she needs it to do. So I think it depends on your photographic goals.

BB4A

A lens that covers ultra wide angle (16mm) out to medium telephoto (300mm) needs to be designed to meet several different, competing criteria. I have a buddy photographer who bought this lens. He eventually decided that the key criteria used by Tamron (and inflicted on their designers) was price point. He sold the lens and saved up to buy a couple of Canon L series lenses to fill the gap.

I don’t think sharpness is a major issue with this lens (after all, most modern lenses are sharp enough for most photographic applications; too often we the users blame the lens rather than our camera-shaking poor technique). When viewing my buddies photographs, we found the center image was generally sharp at all focal lengths, but that chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, and middle to edge fuzziness were (for him) the main issues.

Just my perspective (I may be wrong, I often am), but if your main requirement is a wide ranging zoom on a budget, and you intend to use this mostly on a cropped sensor camera body for bright light, highest speed, central subject shots, from a tripod/monopod, this lens may be a reasonable compromise choice for you. If however, you intend to use your selected lens in lower light conditions, or shoot landscapes or multiple subjects, with a full frame camera body, and expect great performance from your lens, then I recommend you consider saving up for a Canon L-series lens or two, to cover the range of photography genres that most interest you.

All zoom lenses are a compromise, but Canon has done an excellent job in recent years at resolving most of those issues... they just didn’t attempt to do this on a tight budget.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I have the older, but similar Tamron 18-270. It's made two trips to Europe and has been used on thousands of photos. Not the fastest lens, but the combination of wide range and light weight make it a very good walking-around lens.

agillot

a friend gave me a 28/300 tamron after he used it a lot for a few years , now , been using it for 3 yrs , nothing wrong with it , i would paid the $ 100 to fix it .i like it because it focus CLOSE .to me it is sharp enough and lite / compact .a men made rubber band fixed the zoom creep problem .

miked46 Loc: Winter Springs, Florida

I have the 16-300 and took it to Italy and it has performed on my 70D flawlessly. It now sits on my 80D.

billmck Loc: Central KY

I enjoy taking photographs, especially when I travel. I’ve had this lens, and it worked fine for me and my type of photography, meaning I only have to take the one lens. Many responders are much more particular and don’t find this lens to work for their needs.

I’m curious as to why you’re looking at this particular lens and not the better Tamron 18-400.

lamontcranston

I have the same lens (18-270) and agree with the comments above. Mine has been to Africa and it performed well as a lightweight all-around lens. My one experience with Tamron's customer service on a warranty issue was not good. For that reason, I would not buy another Tamron lens.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I have that lens on my 7DII was a good walk around light weight hiking lens very versatile. I also like the 18-400 even more they both can be a little soft at the long end especially in lower light . both were my go to lenses for family outings and get togethers ,travel etc.

MT native Loc: Big Sky Country — Montana

I use that lens on my D7500. If you are on a limited budget, I really do not believe you can go wrong.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

It’s a super-zoom. Don’t expect high caliber results from it.

mymike Loc: Tucson, AZ

I have this on my Nikon D5500 (cropped sensor). I did a lot of research before buying it a few years ago. It is a great (for me) travel package. It mostly sits at home by my patio door to grab shots of birds and flowers in my back yard. I have a Nikon Z6 with adapter and take a 28-300 full frame lens on that for travel. I have other Nikon lenses that I use when doing events and portraits.