270 or 300: I have some money from taxes that I can spend for a new lens. I am thinking g either the tamron 18 - 270 or the tamron 16 - 300. My question is will I notice much...

tom1921 Loc: hartland WI

I have some money from taxes that I can spend for a new lens. I am thinking g either the tamron 18 - 270 or the tamron 16 - 300. My question is will I notice much difference from 270 to 300 mm. I am leaning towards the 270 because of the price difference. But I don'twant to regret purchase later. Thanks for'any and all opinions.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

What camera will you use it on ?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

tom1921 wrote:

I have some money from taxes that I can spend for a new lens. I am thinking g either the tamron 18 - 270 or the tamron 16 - 300. My question is will I notice much difference from 270 to 300 mm. I am leaning towards the 270 because of the price difference. But I don'twant to regret purchase later. Thanks for'any and all opinions.

If you're like me, you'll probably notice the 2mm difference on the wide end more than the 30mm on the long end.
You can always crop (and it won't be much) but you may not be able to back up.
As far as image quality goes, I don't know how these compare.
Zoom lenses are always a compromise and these super zooms are even more so.
They sure are convenient though.
Generally speaking, the best zoom lenses have no more than 3x range and will cost you a lot more.

tom1921 Loc: hartland WI

Nikon d3200

MarkintheHV Loc: Hudson Valley

I have the 18-270 and it does a great job. Tack sharp on the pictures I take.

MarkintheHV Loc: Hudson Valley

..duplicate post...

MarkD Loc: NYC

I had the 18-270 and now have the 16-300. Like the dachshund above I think the 2mm on the wide side is more important than the 30mm on the long side. IMO, save the money and get the 18-270.

Two other lenses you should consider are the Sigma 18-200 Macro OS HSM and Sigma 18-250 Macro OS HSM. I replaced my 18-270 with the Sigma 18-200 Macro which even though shorter is so much sharper that it's even sharper when cropped to 300mm than the 18-270. I got the 16-300 and found that the 18-200 Macro is even sharper than it is when cropped to 300mm. I've gone back to the 18-200 Macro and I'll sell the 16-300.

The only all-in-one that interests me now is the Sigma 18-300. I've read that it's sharper than the Tamron 16-300 at 300. I'm probably better off keeping the 18-200 Macro. Not only is it very sharp, it's 5 ounces lighter.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I also have been very pleased with my Tammy 18-270. Although it is a super zoom, I have gotten some pretty sharp images even at the 270 focal length. I recently got a Nikon prime 35 f/1.8 and I was going to compare the sharpness at the 35 mm focal length between the two. No doubt the prime will be better in low light but I bet the Tamron zoom will be pretty good on the sharpness comparison. The Tammy is a very nice walk around all purpose lens when you only want to bring your camera and one lens.

snooper Loc: Alberta, Canada

Revet wrote:

I also have been very pleased with my Tammy 18-270... (show quote)

Haven't tried the 16-300 so cant comment on it but I do own the Tammy 18-270 and am very happy with the images it produces. It is my daily walk around lens and is on my camera (Canon 50D) most of the time.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Try the Nikon lens simulator. I don't see much difference between 270 and 300mm.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Brooklyn-Camera Loc: Brooklyn, New York City

The lens creep on the 18 - 270 mm is terrible, that is the only objection that I have for this lens. I had to place a rubber wrist ban around the lens to keep it from creeping. The lens is great for a general walk around lens and I even used it to shoot outside well lite sport venues with no problem what soever. If the difference in cost is substantial I would go with the 18 - 270 mm and a rubber wrist ban.

Robert leung

I do have a Tamron 18-270 but not understand about the RUBBER BAN system to stop the Lens Creep. Please indicate details. That is the reason I purchased a Sigma 18-250 which has Creep-lock.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Brooklyn-Camera wrote:

The lens creep on the 18 - 270 mm is terrible, that is the only objection that I have for this lens. I had to place a rubber wrist ban around the lens to keep it from creeping. The lens is great for a general walk around lens and I even used it to shoot outside well lite sport venues with no problem what soever. If the difference in cost is substantial I would go with the 18 - 270 mm and a rubber wrist ban.

I have the canon 18-200 which is very good but also suffers from creep. I use a rubber to prevent it but it pisses me off to have tto use a rubber band on a $700 lens.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Robert leung wrote:

I do have a Tamron 18-270 but not understand about the RUBBER BAN system to stop the Lens Creep. Please indicate details. That is the reason I purchased a Sigma 18-250 which has Creep-lock.

It's an annoying little fellow who sneaks up when the Photographer isn't watching and turns the lens all the way out to max zoom.
But the little creep is deathly afraid of rubber bands. He's afraid he will get snapped.
So the rubber band keeps Mr. Lenz Creep away.

Robert leung

Dear SonyE,
What kind of rubber ban, and WHERE & HOW to put on the Lens barrow? I used the 18-270 in Yellow Stone park and 18-250 in Toronto. They are both equally good. If I can sold the problem of creep, I will keep the 18-270 and give the other to my Grand Son.