Tamron 16-300 vs newer Nikon 18-300: I feel a GAS attack is imminent. Trying decide between these for a D5200 and eventually will get a D7100 to mount it on. I have a Sigma 18-250...

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I feel a GAS attack is imminent. Trying decide between these for a D5200 and eventually will get a D7100 to mount it on. I have a Sigma 18-250 which is good, but need to correct barrel distortion on the low end and it's soft past 200mm. I have a 55-300 Nikon that I like out past 200 better than the Sigma. Looking to replace both. Any good advice from folks with experience with either or both of these lenses is appreciated. Tamron is around $600 after $30 rebate, Nikon is $900 plus you have to buy a lens hood. Is the Nikon really $300 better? I've seen pictures posted at 16 on the Tamron that SOOC are pretty good without much distortion and have heard it doesn't seem to get as close as 300mm as other lenses with similar specs. Thanks in advance. React!

photon56 Loc: North America

The Tamron 16-300mm takes some amazing pictures. I haven't been disappointed with mine.

You probably can't go wrong with either choice. For $300 difference, I'd save the $300 for some other GAS attack.

MarkD Loc: NYC

All superzoom lenses lose some focal length at distances closer than infinity. It's inherent in their design. The closer the subject the more the loss. Some reviews mention this but most don't.

From the tests that I've seen neither lens will be as sharp as your Nikon 55-300 VR at or near 300mm. It's typical of superzooms to be less sharp at their long end so this should be expected.

I'm having the same GAS attack you're having. Now I'm using a Sigma 18-200 Macro OS HSM. It's one of the sharpest superzooms even at 200mm, but I often need more than 200mm so I have to crop. I'm trying to figure if I'm better off with the 16-300 or cropping the 18-200. The GAS attack only complicates the choice.

CO

You'll probably still have to correct the barrel distortion that you are correcting now with your 18-250mm. Engineers have to compromise a lot when designing superzoom lenses. All that I've ever used or read reviews about have a lot of barrel distortion at wide setting and a lot of pincushion distortion at long focal lengths. Try to go with zooms that have a conservative zoom range.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Mr PC wrote:

I feel a GAS attack is imminent. Trying decide be... (show quote)

Either get some BEANO or buy the Tamron.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Another option came to mind. For about the price of the Nikon lens, I could get a refurbed D7100 and keep the 55-300 on one body and the 18-250 on the other body. CO makes sense when he says that a zoom with a broad range like this is going to need correction, either in camera or PP anyway. Firmware updates take care of a lot of that. The Sigma is pretty good from 18-200 or so and is a good walking around, travel lens because it's light and the AF is pretty fast. I really can't go much farther than 300mm on a DX body without a major investment, teleconverters won't work on the 55-300 due to its design. Decisions, decisions... Maybe BEANO is the best advice so far...

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to Wikipedia article on the 3 main types of distortion we often have to correct for in one way or another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Mr PC wrote:

Any good advice from folks with experience with either or both of these lenses is appreciated.

No personal experience, but here are some articles. I prefer to rely on people who can compare both and have experience doing so.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tamron%2016-300%20vs%20nikon%2018-300

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

jerryc41 wrote:

No personal experience, but here are some articles. I prefer to rely on people who can compare both and have experience doing so.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tamron%2016-300%20vs%20nikon%2018-300

Thanks Jerry. I had already done my due diligence with online reviews. Seems to be a real shortage of any real reviews on the Tamron, only some pictures I've seen posted on the Hog and some sample shots at dpreview and the hype at the Tamron site. The new Sigma in this category is about to be released and is available for pre-order from Amazon for around $590. Maybe I need to cross my legs, take a deep breath and pray for patience. As a relative novice to the sales cycle for lenses and cameras, is there a better time of year, like right after Photokina or some other trade show, or maybe wait until a successor is announced to the gear you have your eye on and see if you can snag a closeout, etc? I've done fairly well buying and selling on Craigslist, which at least lets me touch stuff first.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Mr PC wrote:

Thanks Jerry. I had already done my due diligence... (show quote)

Yeah, it's hard getting good reviews on very new equipment. I'd like to see a comparison of the Nikon 18-300mm with my 28-300mm. I love my lens, and I wouldn't considering getting the newer one, but I'd still like to see a comparison. I'll take a look at DxO.

EDIT: I see the 18-300mm is a DX lens.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-F35-56G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D610___1071_915_970_865_323_915

CO

jerryc41 wrote:

Yeah, it's hard getting good reviews on very new e... (show quote)

Ken Rockwell did a Nikon 18-200mm vs 28-300mm vs 18-300mm comparison. It's at this link:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/DX-super-zooms/

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Why not simply keep the Nikon 55-300mm , and replace the Sigma 18-250mm with a wide angle lens? Preferably a fairly compact wide angle lens that you can easily carry with you and quickly swap out with the 55-300mm when needed.

If you are carrying two cameras, one can have the wide angle, the other the 55-300mm lens. Makes more sense than having duplicate ranges on both cameras.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

CO wrote:

Ken Rockwell did a Nikon 18-200mm vs 28-300mm vs 18-300mm comparison. It's at this link:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/DX-super-zooms/

Thanks!

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

rook2c4 wrote:

Why not simply keep the Nikon 55-300mm , and replace the Sigma 18-250mm with a wide angle lens? Preferably a fairly compact wide angle lens that you can easily carry with you and quickly swap out with the 55-300mm when needed.

If you are carrying two cameras, one can have the wide angle, the other the 55-300mm lens. Makes more sense than having duplicate ranges on both cameras.

Thanks. Good idea. If I do get another body, I do have the 18-55 Nikon kit lens and am considering a wide angle large aperture prime lens for landscapes and cityscapes. At the moment, when I have the 55-300 on the D5200, I also have a Canon SX-510 bridge camera around my neck for wider angle shots and up to 30X optical zoom. The quality is very good on the Canon, but it won't shoot RAW or go above F8. The smaller sensor isn't too great for bokeh either, but it is a good snapshot camera. I do several African photo safaris a year in connection with mission work I do every 6 months. Conditions are way too dusty most of the time to even consider swapping lenses.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

I've tried the 18-300 and it seemed pretty good at any length but I'm sticking with my 55-300, a brilliant lens...also heaps cheaper...

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

SX2002 wrote:

I've tried the 18-300 and it seemed pretty good at any length but I'm sticking with my 55-300, a brilliant lens...also heaps cheaper...

I do like my 55-300 too. Thanks for your good advice...