Tamron 16/300 Lens for Canon.
I am considering buying this lens. I would like to have opinions from users of the lens.
Thanks.
jc
It is a decent enough and popular lens, but has all the flaws one would expect from an inexpensive do-it-all superzoom It is somewhat soft at the long end and while fairly sharp in the center at most focal lengths, it is softer at the image edges. It has a sizeable amount of distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting, all of which can be corrected in post processing. Whether you like this lens or not will depends on your intended use for it and you expectations. Depesite the negative sounding review, it is a nice casual all-in-one vacation lens. What camera body were you hoping to use it on?
Had that one, but now have 18-400. Both are good all around lenses for the amateur. Why not go for the longer reach?
The Canon 70D.. Thank you for your response.
TonyF wrote:
Had that one, but now have 18-400. Both are good all around lenses for the amateur. Why not go for the longer reach?
Yes, I also have a Tamron 18-400. It is an overall better lens than the 16-300. A few advantages of the 16-300 are its smaller size and lighter weight, and the 16mm wide end. Two additional mm may not sound like much, but on the wide end of a lens it can be quite significant.
Have it. Love it. Only downside it weighs a ton.
One or my photo teachers, David Lauria, is a pro and has many magazine covers among his many credits and he calls the 16-300 his "go to" lens.
I don't like really wide range wide to tele lenses. Especially Tamron. But I've never used this one so...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.