Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO Lens for Nikon: I’ve been reading about this lens, Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO Lens, on a couple other threads, so I...

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I’ve been reading about this lens, Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO Lens, on a couple other threads, so I thought I’d do a bit of research on my own, as the idea of an “all-in-one” lens seems like a good way to not have to carry around a bunch of different lenes. What I’ve found is a lot of mixed reviews. While most people generally liked this lens, there was frequent mention of AF being slow, even in bright light, especially at full zoom. There were quite a number of complaints saying that the lens is soft. I’m wondering what those of you here who have this lens think of it. And how would it compare to the Sigma 18-300, similar lens?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Wingpilot wrote:

I’ve been reading about this lens, Tamron 16-300mm... (show quote)

Almost all super zooms (most esp the ones from wide angle to tele) are "a jack of all trades, master of none". Even the expensive ones like the 100-400L which is $2K and much, much better than other zooms but not as good as the $$$$$ primes. Or as one review said when the 100-400 mk II came out "The mark 1 was good enough a lot of wildlife photographers made a living with it for many years, and the mark 2 is even better."

So, what is acceptable IQ to you? Pretty sharp or you want to count the little veins in the wing feathers?

Look at some of the bird photos posted by Regis - that is an aprx $11,000 rig at msrp. But it is big, heavy, expensive (you can get more expensive, they will be glad to sell the stuff to you.) and if you walked around outside the fence of an airport you would be swarmed by a SWAT team called out for some guy with a shoulder fired SAM.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Tamron lens are excellent value, second to Sigma in the 3rd party lens market (my opinion). Since the new 18-400 has been released, you'll probably find good deals on the 16-300.
As robertjerl pointed out, all in one lenses are based on compromise, but that does not discount their usability.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

robertjerl wrote:

Almost all super zooms (most esp the ones from wid... (show quote)

Appreciate the info, but I’m looking for experiences from folks here regarding this specific lens.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Tamron lens are excellent value, second to Sigma in the 3rd party lens market (my opinion). Since the new 18-400 has been released, you'll probably find good deals on the 16-300.
As robertjerl pointed out, all in one lenses are based on compromise, but that does not discount their usability.

Yes there are compromises in those lenses. Some have fewer compromises than others. I’m asking because I have an early Tamron 28-300 lens that I don’t think is a very good lens. It seems very soft over the entire zoom range. I’m hoping the 16-300 is a much better lens.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Wingpilot wrote:

Appreciate the info, but I’m looking for experiences from folks here regarding this specific lens.

OK, I had one for two days, bought it with my 7DII. It was a great walk around lens, fairly light, well built and sharp for the type of lens it is. But I am into birds, bugs etc and like to see the tiny details on most of my images. (the birds are often not close enough and I crop a lot) And I already owned the 100-400L mk 1 and the 24-105L. So I swapped it back for something I didn't already have covered. I got the Tamron 10-24 which was also a very good lens. I had it a few months, my daughter fell in love with it for indoor Anime and Cosplay events so I gave it to her for her birthday. She loves that lens.

Why did I buy the 16-300 in the first place? The dealer had a special and at the time there was a substantial rebate offered on several Tamron lens. Oh, I like Tamrons in general, I have also owned a 150-600 G1 and their 180 macro is my second favorite lens, right after the 100-400L mk 2 I now own.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

robertjerl wrote:

OK, I had one for two days, bought it with my 7DII... (show quote)

Thank you. At least it seems to be a good lens, but it jjst meet your needs. I understand that.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

I had this lens on my D7100, & sold it after I went full frame. I was generally happy with it, but it is definitely soft at full zoom. Keep it under about 260mm & you'll have no problems with sharpness. It is good at the wide end & takes great landscape. I had no issues with AF. It focuses up real close which is great for close ups, such as flowers. My personal opinion after using mine for 12 months.....Apart from being a bit soft at the big end, it's a good all round lens. It is definitely not tack sharp, but it is acceptably sharp--just a routine sharpen in PP & it shapes up pretty good. It's pretty good value, IMO.

Eael.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I have this lens on my Canon and switch back and forth between it and the 100-400 ll and would recommend it for all in one .

I would also recommend that you calibrate the lens to your camera,I noticed a difference in IQ and autofocus speed.

rando Loc: Rochester NY

I love this lens. The combination of wide angle (16mm) and the zoom (300mm) makes it perfect for every day shooting and it's my favorite travel lens. It's not my choice for bird photos. I use the Tamron 150-600.

Bill_de Loc: US

NormanTheGr8 wrote:

I have this lens on my Canon and switch back and forth between it and the 100-400 ll and would recommend it for all in one .

I would also recommend that you calibrate the lens to your camera,I noticed a difference in IQ and autofocus speed.

Did you do calibrations for multiple focal lengths or just the longest? If just the longest did it adversely affect focus at shorter lengths?

---

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

DOOK wrote:

I had this lens on my D7100, & sold it after I... (show quote)

Thank you. That's the info I'm looking for.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

NormanTheGr8 wrote:

I have this lens on my Canon and switch back and forth between it and the 100-400 ll and would recommend it for all in one .

I would also recommend that you calibrate the lens to your camera,I noticed a difference in IQ and autofocus speed.

Thanks, Norman.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

rando wrote:

I love this lens. The combination of wide angle (16mm) and the zoom (300mm) makes it perfect for every day shooting and it's my favorite travel lens. It's not my choice for bird photos. I use the Tamron 150-600.

Thanks, Rando. Sounds like this would be a good choice for an all around lens.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Bill_de wrote:

Did you do calibrations for multiple focal lengths or just the longest? If just the longest did it adversely affect focus at shorter lengths?

---

That's good idea. Should I eventually get this lens, that is probably the first thing I'll do is calibrate it to my D7200. I don't have any idea whether calibrating the lens to one extreme end will have an adverse effect on the other end. The last time I calibrated a zoom lens, the instructions said to set it to somewhere in the middle of the range. I guess each lens is different.