Tamron vs Nikon for a Walk Around Lens
Jun 8, 2017 10:54:02 #
I plan to take two trips to Europe this summer and want to take only one lens – a walk around lens. Having toured foreign cities before carrying different lenses, I want to avoid the weight and the hassle of different lenses.
I plan to buy either the Tamron 16 – 300 mm or the Nikon 18 – 300 mm lens.
To date, I have only purchased Nikon lenses and have been satisfied with the quality and clarity. Reviews say both lens under consideration are good but neither the sharpest at certain lengths. Given they are good but not the sharpest does it make sense to pay more for the Nikon usually known for sharpness? I don’t see advantages of Nikon here.
A second question is about the 16mm width compared to the 18 mm width. I take mainly architectural and street photography and I like idea of the extra width.
I am leaning towards the Tamron but hesitate as it will be my first non Nikon purchase. I would greatly appreciate help in this decision.
I plan to buy either the Tamron 16 – 300 mm or the Nikon 18 – 300 mm lens.
To date, I have only purchased Nikon lenses and have been satisfied with the quality and clarity. Reviews say both lens under consideration are good but neither the sharpest at certain lengths. Given they are good but not the sharpest does it make sense to pay more for the Nikon usually known for sharpness? I don’t see advantages of Nikon here.
A second question is about the 16mm width compared to the 18 mm width. I take mainly architectural and street photography and I like idea of the extra width.
I am leaning towards the Tamron but hesitate as it will be my first non Nikon purchase. I would greatly appreciate help in this decision.
Jun 8, 2017 11:08:24 #
As you probably know, almost every review I've read about lenses with such a large zoom range as 18-300 are at times less sharp than lenses with more conventional zoom ranges, so you might have a good point about this being a good time to go with another brand I can't speak to the Tamron, but I will tell you that I went with a Tokina 11-16 because the Nikon was too expensive, and I've never regretted it. It's one of my favorite lenses, although not for your purpose.
Jun 8, 2017 11:12:24 #
I have that Tammy and it's fairly sharp, but can't compare it to the Nikon. I don't have one. Tammy is a nice lens, solidly built and has VR.
Jun 8, 2017 11:16:20 #
There maybe a third option to consider. Instead of a 16-300 or 18-300mm lens what about taking a 70-300 mm lens and then add a small prime wide fast lens for those inside (and outside) low light situations. The super zoom will likely be a slow lens. The small prime will add very little weight and volume to your bag and might prove valuable. And it will be a much less conspicuous choice for street photography. The 70-300 mm lens will be optically better (and smaller) than the super zoom. Or if you are set on the super zoom, still add a fast, wide prime. I don't have Nikon equipment so I can't speak to the Nikon 18-300 mm lens but I have a Tamron 16-150 mm for Micro 4/3 and it has been a decent lens. Have a fun trip.
Jun 8, 2017 11:22:16 #
Yep, I agree with Toment on the Tammy, being quite satisfied with mine, and besides it's a good value, fulfilling the walk around concept very well.
Jun 9, 2017 04:13:01 #
Robeng
Loc: California
raypep wrote:
I plan to take two trips to Europe this summer and... (show quote)
Raypep,
I have all full frame Nikon photo stuff and have done photography around the world. From my experience I found that it's much better to travel lighter than to carry a bunch of gear you may not use. If you look at my recent images from China, they were all shot with a Nikon D500 using one 18mm-300mm lens. I left all the full frame stuff at home and I'm glad I did. There's very little difference between the 16mm vs 18mm. I can get whatever I want from Nikon because I'm part of NPS. I still prefer to use the above equipment for traveling.
Jun 9, 2017 07:35:46 #
Love my Tamrom 16-300mm! Just returned from a month+ long European trip and it was perfect...love having the zoom for those detail "far away" pics!
Jun 9, 2017 07:41:52 #
I have the Tamron 28-300 that I took around the UK two years ago. I also borrowed a Nikon 28-300 for a few days before buying the Tamron. I didn't see a difference
even blowing them up 200% in different light situations. I purchased the Tamron (even tho I have many Nikon lenses) because it was a tad lighter to carry and was less expensive. I found it to be a fine walk around lens with the understanding its not going to be as sharp as any prime, especially at the higher and lower ends of the range, meaning 28 or 300mm. There was some vingetting. Again it was fine for walking around.
The following summer in Yellowstone and the Tetons, I took it again but found myself shooting with primes more often, likely because I was shooting many more landscapes. I found the reviews to be right on. Its a fine walk around lens but for real sharpness, say inside churches or landscapes, have a good prime as well.
Mike
even blowing them up 200% in different light situations. I purchased the Tamron (even tho I have many Nikon lenses) because it was a tad lighter to carry and was less expensive. I found it to be a fine walk around lens with the understanding its not going to be as sharp as any prime, especially at the higher and lower ends of the range, meaning 28 or 300mm. There was some vingetting. Again it was fine for walking around.
The following summer in Yellowstone and the Tetons, I took it again but found myself shooting with primes more often, likely because I was shooting many more landscapes. I found the reviews to be right on. Its a fine walk around lens but for real sharpness, say inside churches or landscapes, have a good prime as well.
Mike
Jun 9, 2017 07:50:10 #
Jun 9, 2017 08:08:57 #
Jun 9, 2017 08:34:37 #
I have a Tamron 18-270 which has proven to be an excellent lens for me. If you are doing interiors, the Tokina 11-16 is also excellent. Both lenses are for crop sensor . . .
Jun 9, 2017 10:19:55 #
I have no experience with the Tamron 16-300 or Nikon 18-300. A lens that I would consider using as my only traveling lens is the Nikon 18-200 VR. 18mm could be all the wide angle many photographers need but if 18mm is not enough then the addition of a wider lens could compliment the 18-200.
Just my point of view.
Just my point of view.
Jun 9, 2017 10:56:54 #
I use a Nikon 18-200mm as a walk around at Farmer's Market and Street Fairs. Sharpness is not a problem throughout the range. Lightroom has a lens correction built-in which takes care of distortion. I have read that the Nikon 18-300mm has problems at the 300mm end. If you need wider than the ~ 28mm (equivalent) then get the Tamron 11-16mm.
Jun 9, 2017 11:22:51 #
Mostly you will not see a difference between the two lens untll sometime down the road. For example I have two 80-200 2.8 Nikkors, one the orginal push pull and then the AF-D (I believe) and both of them are over 20 years old and still going strong. Most of my work is photo journalism, so they are my main walk around lenses so they see heavy use. A buddy of mine bought the Tamron 8-200 2.8, took excellent photos, but it fell apart and had to be replaced after several years of heavy use as a photo journalist.
The moral of the story is - if you are not using the lens all day, every day, the Tamron will probably last you a life time. But if you expect to put it to lots of use and abuse then the Nikkor will probably last you better. But as for image quality - the Tamron makes good products. Until I dropped it and sent it to the lens graveyard, I had a Tamron 90mm macro that was one of the sharpest lenses that I owned. I've replaced it with the Nikkor 105 2.8, but that was because the store that was around when I needed to replace the lens, carried Nikon, but not Tamron.
The moral of the story is - if you are not using the lens all day, every day, the Tamron will probably last you a life time. But if you expect to put it to lots of use and abuse then the Nikkor will probably last you better. But as for image quality - the Tamron makes good products. Until I dropped it and sent it to the lens graveyard, I had a Tamron 90mm macro that was one of the sharpest lenses that I owned. I've replaced it with the Nikkor 105 2.8, but that was because the store that was around when I needed to replace the lens, carried Nikon, but not Tamron.
Jun 9, 2017 13:54:22 #
gjgallager
Loc: North Central CT & Space Coast Florida
I bought the Tamron at the end of 2015 when they had a double rebate, $50 and $80. When travelling I take that along with my Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens. The macro feature can be usefull too.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.