Tamron 16-300 vs 18-400
Sep 20, 2019 09:46:11 #
the 18-400 is really a great lens for what it is....a walk-around that covers all the bases. I have had mine for 2 years and really love it for the versatility and the range when you can really only carry your camera and 1 lens.
Sep 20, 2019 09:58:18 #
As you likely know, the Tamron 18-270 has been around for some time. I’ve rented the Tamron 16-300 and the 18-400 as well as the Sigma 18-300. Granted, I have 2 other Sigmas, the 150-600 Cont and the 100-400, and the Sigma dock, so I was a little partial to the Sigma. That said, the two Tamrons and the Sigma all performed well for my needs. Given the choice of which of the three, I don’t think there’s an issue with any of them. All are an improvement over the somewhat long in the tooth 18-270. BTW, a search of the UHH archives will make available more information than you need.
Sep 20, 2019 10:55:37 #
I bought the 18-400 and love it. It is the only one I have tried so I can't compare it to the other but I think you would be pleased with it.
Sep 20, 2019 11:50:42 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
runakid wrote:
Any thoughts? Anyone used either? Thinking of upgrading my wife's lens from the 18-270 -which she loves and I have loved for trips. It really worked out well on a recent tour of Italy.
I have owned both when I was shooting Canon. They were both great lenses. I have not shot the 18-270 so don't know how they would compare.
Sep 20, 2019 13:14:00 #
scooper44
Loc: Layton UT
A little over a year ago I bought a Tamron 18 – – 400 and took it on a photo safari to Kenya and Tanzania. During the two weeks we were there it was very dusty at times and very rainy a couple of days. The lens performed beautifully and the pictures we got were crisp clear and had no focus problems. We use this on a DX camera – – not full frame so we actually got a longer lens capability. If you don’t wish to carry the weight of several different lenses, this lens or something similar is ideal.
Sep 20, 2019 14:36:13 #
I use the Sigma 18-300 ($399). I don't think the Tamron 16-300 is worth the extra $230. I think you should consider this lens. I find the IQ more than adequate.
To answer your question, which is more important to you, the extra width of 16 vs 18 or the extra reach of 400 over 300?
Of course, if the 18-270 works, why replace it?
To answer your question, which is more important to you, the extra width of 16 vs 18 or the extra reach of 400 over 300?
Of course, if the 18-270 works, why replace it?
Sep 20, 2019 14:40:09 #
I have the 16-300mm on both my cameras. When the 18-400mm came out I compared the image at 300mm to an image at 400mm, using my 150-600mm, and decided the difference in 100mm wasn't worth the cost to purchase. This was using my D500. At the low end the difference between 16mm and 18mm also wasn't a reason to buy. If I was just starting out I would probably buy the 18-400mm but at this point I'll pass on the upgrade.
Sep 20, 2019 15:30:52 #
PHOTOAL wrote:
I still have the 16-300 but purchased the 18-400 and it rarely leaves my camera. A great walk around lens for just about anything. However depending upon what you like to record images of would be a determining factor in regards to the extra length of the 18-400 and if it is needed.
Ditto from me
Sep 20, 2019 16:09:45 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
mwsilvers wrote:
Forgetting IQ for the moment, the 18-400 is a lot bigger and heavier.
Sep 20, 2019 16:18:15 #
Leo_B
Loc: Houston suburb
A good comparison of the suspect list. Wasn't sure which 18-270 so I put them all.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=tamron_16-300-3p5-6p3&products=tamron_18-400_3p5-6p3_di_ii_vc_hld&products=tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_pzd&products=tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_pzd&products=tamron_18_270_3p5_6p3_vc
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=tamron_16-300-3p5-6p3&products=tamron_18-400_3p5-6p3_di_ii_vc_hld&products=tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_pzd&products=tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_pzd&products=tamron_18_270_3p5_6p3_vc
Sep 20, 2019 16:21:31 #
Sep 20, 2019 19:51:07 #
runakid wrote:
Any thoughts? Anyone used either? Thinking of upgrading my wife's lens from the 18-270 -which she loves and I have loved for trips. It really worked out well on a recent tour of Italy.
I use the Tammy 18-400 on a Canon aps-c body and find it acceptable in terms of IQ. The spread however, is super.
Sep 20, 2019 19:58:47 #
I gave my wife the 18-400mm Tamron to replace her 16-270mm Tamron and sold her 16-270mm lens. She found it too heavy and in mid 21 day trip she took my 16-270mm Tamron and put her 18-400mm lens on my camera. I like the extra reach of the 18-400mm and the quicker focusing. Sharpness of the 16-400mm, I have found to very good. If the extra weight is no problem I highly recommend the 18-400mm for wildlife, birds, etc.
Sep 20, 2019 20:23:06 #
I have a Tamron 18-400 and 18-200. I love the 18-400 for a great walking around lens and it hardly ever leaves my Nikon D7200. I use the 18-200 when traveling by air as its lighter and the 200 is zoom enough. Good luck!
Sep 21, 2019 07:56:47 #
runakid
Loc: Shelbyville, TN
Thanks to all. Love the report s from those who have used one or both.
Love your help.
Love your help.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.