Tamron 16-300.
Aug 4, 2014 15:08:07 #
Has anyone tried this lens out yet? I was wondering about the quality, like they say 'if it sounds too good to be true it usually is'.
Aug 4, 2014 15:16:06 #
There have been several postings with images also from this lens, Maybe if you use the search section you can find some results . I too am interested in it
Aug 4, 2014 15:18:56 #
I'm torn between this lens and the newer Nikon 18-300 for around $900. I'm happy with a Nikon 55-300 and a Sigma 18-250 for a walking around lens. The Tamron could take the place of both and I'd come pretty close to breaking even if I sold both of the other lenses. Anyone know how it performs on a Nikon body?
Aug 5, 2014 06:08:17 #
thehing wrote:
Has anyone tried this lens out yet? I was wondering about the quality, like they say 'if it sounds too good to be true it usually is'.
I have been using the lens for several months. Here are two photos, taken at same location, one at 16mm, the other at 300 mm. I have been very happy with this lens.
Aug 5, 2014 11:57:16 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Robert R wrote:
I have been using the lens for several months. Here are two photos, taken at same location, one at 16mm, the other at 300 mm. I have been very happy with this lens.
The focal range is impressive. Both photos look a bit soft to me, at least on the 5" HD screen on my Galaxy s5. Perhaps they would look sharper on my monitor at home. However, what I did see at 16 mm is a high amount of chromatic aberration, of the purple fringing variety. I could see it clearly, even on my phone, when I zoomed in a bit.
This is not a criticism of this lens. Super zooms by their nature are a compromise. They are generally softer, especially at the edges, have greater barrel distortion and higher chromatic aberration. The overriding pluses for many people is the large focal range and having a single "do it all" lens mounted on your camera. You always (well almost always) have the focal length you need literally at your finger tips.
Aug 6, 2014 13:53:06 #
macc
Loc: Ventura, Ca.
I, too, am curious with how others find this lens. I am shooting with a D7100, and the older version of the 18-200mm , but that extra 100mm is tempting. Can one use a TC 1.4 with it? Thanks, Mac
Aug 6, 2014 14:23:34 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
I took another look, this time in my 24" HD monitor. As I previously indicated the images are both soft and at 300 mm there is excessive CA. (I inadvertently indicated the CA was visible at 16mm) At 300mm the edges are very soft. I think the results from the Tamron 18-270mm my son uses are somewhat sharper when zoomed in all the way to 270mm. In any case, as I alluded to earlier, for many people the flexibility of a super zoom like the 16-300mm will trump any IQ limitations.
Aug 6, 2014 19:03:43 #
Very nice shots Robert. I don't know what they are talking about. But these are very sharp I don't see any thing they are talking about in your shots! Looks like a winner to me!!!!
Erv
Erv
Robert R wrote:
I have been using the lens for several months. Here are two photos, taken at same location, one at 16mm, the other at 300 mm. I have been very happy with this lens.
Aug 6, 2014 19:15:45 #
thehing wrote:
Has anyone tried this lens out yet? I was wondering about the quality, like they say 'if it sounds too good to be true it usually is'.
I have been using this lens for a few weeks now. It does have it's short comings, but all in all, I like the improved distance over my 18-200 vrII, and can't tell a huge difference in the quality.
Aug 6, 2014 19:18:02 #
Erv wrote:
Very nice shots Robert. I don't know what they are talking about. But these are very sharp I don't see any thing they are talking about in your shots! Looks like a winner to me!!!!
Erv
Erv
Thanks Erv. The lens works well for my needs.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.