bigb Loc: Central New Jersey, USA

would like opinions comparing nikon 55-300 vr to tamron 18-270 vc for walk around lens.thank's

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

What camera will you be using it on?

daninr8 Loc: Western Slope of Colorado

What are you shooting? Street, Landscape, etc?

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

While I have the 55-200mm and a 70-300mm and the 18-270mm I find the 18-270mm to be much lighter and versitile then the others for casual walk around lens.
My choice would be the 18-270mm for a good walk around lens. Pete

Kuzano

First, qualify the range of a walk-around lens. A lens that gives a range of focal lengths that would preclude lens changes if you wanted to spend your "walk around" without carrying a second lens.

The Nikon you mention would not be such a lens. At it's shortest focal length, on a DX (crop sensor) camera, it would start at an AOV equivalent of 75mm. That means you would want to carry a wide angle, unless you never needed a normal or wider lens during your "walk around".

Granted that's probably a case of semantics, but the general term "walk around" applied to lenses means no second lens on the trip/hike/whatever.

Regardless of the higher price OR Image Quality of the Nikon, it will not fill the bill as a single lens in your kit over a sustained outing.

No help here on the quality differences, but image quality is compromised at some point with either lens over a range of focal lengths that large. It's a matter of Optics and Physics.

In the case of anyone attempting to answer your question, it's also a subjective response. It depends entirely on what you find acceptable in terms of Image Quality, and build quality, considering what others find acceptable.

Your best bet is to buy both, use both, and sell the one you find unacceptable.

:thumbdown:

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

Don't know about the Tamron but the Nikkor 55-300mm is a ripper lens and you won't get anything much lighter either...
The lens on my camera most of the time for general purpose use is the really great 18-105mm Nikkor..

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

I use a Nikon D5300 w/18-55mm & 55-300mm. Tried the Tamaron 18-270mm and the Tamaron 2x Tele-converter. A really good all-in-One lens setup. Then I came upon a Nikon 28-300. WOW. If you can afford the 28-300 @ $700 it's the way to go. In the $300 price range it's the Tamaron 18-270mm for my money, both beat the "Kit Lenses."
Craig

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

Why do they need to spend twice the money and then take a loss on selling a used lens, yes it sounds good in therory but unless ones got the extra cash I don't see that as viable option.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

On the Wide Angle issue I just step back until I get the angle I want or use my Tamaron 17-50mm, again it beats the 18-55mm 'Kit Lens'.
Craig

Kuzano

For two reasons.... the lenses are not oranges and oranges. The Nikon is not truly a "walk around " lens.

Secondly, because the responses will not be subjective. The only people who can answer the OP's question is anyone who has both lenses... it's as simple as that. Plus, most of the people who respond are bias'd toward what they bought.

Nobody who has only purchased ONE of the two lenses can truly answer the question.

If the OP really wants the truth of the matter, he/she will buy both and test both.

I do this all the time. If the item, purchased new is popular, the loss on resale is less than renting both pieces to test. I purchased A New Olympus E-Pl1, and a New Canon T2i, both in kit, and carried them both for 60 days. The Olympus kicked the Canon's butt, so I sold the Canon at a loss of $100. Could not have rented both for 60 days for the lost $100.

I consider that asking such questions on any forum regarding which is best, is an absolute fool's errand.

The respondent information is often not genuine, it is often not tested with both products, and it is largely bias'd toward what the responder owns.

:hunf:

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

I have the kit 18-55mm and 55-200mm nikon lens, the tamron 18-270mm and 70-300mm tamron an a nikon 50mm 1.8 and the ones i carry 99% of the time are the 50mm, 18-270mm and 70-300mm.
The 18-270mm is lighter more compact and works well for close up's and give me almost the same reach as the 70-300mm and if needed I can easily carry the 50mm in a pocket.
I took a scenic train ride last year and took the 50mm and the 18-270mm and the 18-270mm got the most usage.
Pete

bigb Loc: Central New Jersey, USA

thank you everyone,

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Neither is a stellar lens. The Tamron will be more versatile although the Nikon is slightly better overall.

bigb Loc: Central New Jersey, USA

using nikon d5100 shooting everything that's reason for wanting a versatile lens. Maybe should of mentioned i have the nikon and just bought the tamron after rebates for $349.Now trying to decide whether to sell nikon or keep nikon and use it in conjunction with 18-55 kit lens for now.still have time to return tamron.Either way i can pay my bills[ barely ],just trying to not have more stuff then i need,but don't want to give up too much IQ.hope i made some sense.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

I have a friend who has the Tamron 18-270 and loves it. Another friend loaned me his Nikkor 18-200 VR ll with zoom lock for my a trip to Kauai, including a doors off helicopter flight. When my wife saw some images I took around the house, she said go buy one. You can not switch lenses if you have the doors off. I did buy one, and It is the only lens I took. Has not been off my D7000 since, and I have collection of excellent pictures. Am looking at a dozen or so to have printed at 16x24".
Duane