Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon vs Tamron lenses
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Oct 17, 2017 12:12:35   #
janiebutz
 
I am considering upgrading the 18-140 kit lens which came with my d7100. I would like to have a little more reach. My camera store highly recommended the Tamron 18–200 or the 16-300, saying that, for the price, Tamron is a better product. I have since been reading about the Nikon lens and it certainly has a lot of good reviews. Would any of you like to weigh in on this? I am using it as a travel/hiking lens and the weight of the bigger Tamron was a negative for me.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:16:24   #
jerryc41 (a regular here)
 
janiebutz wrote:
I am considering upgrading the 18-140 kit lens which came with my d7100. I would like to have a little more reach. My camera store highly recommended the Tamron 18–200 or the 16-300, saying that, for the price, Tamron is a better product. I have since been reading about the Nikon lens and it certainly has a lot of good reviews. Would any of you like to weigh in on this? I am using it as a travel/hiking lens and the weight of the bigger Tamron was a negative for me.


Read lots of reviews of anything you buy. Then decide if the savings are worth any compromises. Reviewers are paid to find flaws, flaws that a casual shooter might never see. You also have to consider durability and resale value, if you see that in your future. If a lens is too heavy for your purposes, that's an easy way to rule it out.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:29:58   #
gary robertson
 
I have a 7100 and I just went to the Tamron 18/400 and am very happy with the combo. I have a bunch of Nikon lenses on the shelf now.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:36:08   #
twowindsbear (a regular here)
 
Since you want 'reach' - go with the -300 or the -400 rather than the -200 lens. There's just not much difference comparing a 140mm lens to a 200mm lens.

IMHO, of course.

Good luck with your new lens.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 12:36:19   #
AK Grandpa
 
I replaced my kit lenses with a Tamron 18-270 a couple of years ago and it has been used 95% of the time. I liked it so well that I bought the Tamron 18-400 as soon as it was released . . . For travel I take this lens along with a super-wide 11-16, and have everything covered . . . I've heard the 16-300 is an excellent lens also . . .

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 13:04:00   #
djtravels
 
When I bought my first DSLR, the first additional lens I bought was the Tamron 18-200. I recommend it for a great walk-around lens. I've been looking at the new 10-400mm but some of the reviews aren't too happy with it. So, I'll wait.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 14:07:34   #
robertjerl (a regular here)
 
janiebutz wrote:
I am considering upgrading the 18-140 kit lens which came with my d7100. I would like to have a little more reach. My camera store highly recommended the Tamron 18–200 or the 16-300, saying that, for the price, Tamron is a better product. I have since been reading about the Nikon lens and it certainly has a lot of good reviews. Would any of you like to weigh in on this? I am using it as a travel/hiking lens and the weight of the bigger Tamron was a negative for me.


200 mm is not much of a jump over 140 mm, 300 or 400 is a major jump
If you are insisting on small and/or light in a super zoom you either do one of two things:

1. Accept that it does not produce the greatest image quality in the world, on computer, projected, small prints they are good but if you want the ability to produce baby billboards to hang on the wall, not so much.

2. Spend a basket full of $ on a very high end super zoom and the IQ goes up a lot. But so does the size and weight while your bank account shrinks.

My Canon 100-400L mark 2 ($2K) is an excellent lens with great IQ (bigger and heavier than the lenses your are looking at) - until you put it up against the long L class primes (and the 200-400L at $10999). But those primes go for multiple thousands of dollars up to $12999 (only $9999 if you stick to 400mm). And I would either need an ATV set up for photography or go over to the high school/community college athletic department and hire a lineman, wrestler or weight lifter to carry my camera bag.

I am sure Nikon lenses are the roughly the same. Your choice comes down to small size and light weight gives IQ loss, less so with the expensive ones or you lift weights so you can carry the bigger heavier high IQ zoom. If the small light lenses give you an IQ you an accept, OK, go for it. If the IQ isn't up to what you want then you have those other choices to make.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 14:38:36   #
67skylark27
 
I have a Tamron 70-300mm lens I like very much. A little soft on either end but in between
is very sharp. It was quite reasonable in price also. I also have the 18-140 and use it for
90% of my hiking. You will want at least 300mm if you want more reach, 200 won't cut it.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 15:08:38   #
janiebutz
 
Thank you all for your responses. Now comes the hard part....deciding! At this point I think the 16-300 wins!

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 16:01:08   #
DaveO (a regular here)
 
gary robertson wrote:
I have a 7100 and I just went to the Tamron 18/400 and am very happy with the combo. I have a bunch of Nikon lenses on the shelf now.


My wife just took 1600 shots with her D7100/18-400 combo and we are quite pleased with all focal lengths. It replaced her 18-140 which is also a decent enough lens. It was a great walk-around lens that could reach out nicely for wildlife in Yellowstone and also capture a bee on a flower.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 16:52:13   #
bkyser
 
I've had several lenses in my 30 years in the "biz" Nikon will always be the best, but Sigma comes in a close second. Even with newer Tamron lenses, they just don't focus quite as fast, and I've had more issues with them holding up.

They discontinued it, but my all time favorite DX lens is the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (which is almost exactly the same viewing angle as a FF 70-200) They are getting harder to find, but worth every penny.

| Reply
Oct 17, 2017 19:49:54   #
rmorrison1116 (a regular here)
 
The reason your camera store guy told you the Tamron, for the money, is better is because their profit margin on the Tamron over the Nikon is higher. Several years ago I was leaving on a trip and I needed a 70-200 f/2.8 lens so I went to the local camera store to get one. They were out of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 but had the new Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 in Stock, for $1499 I believe. The sales guy went on and on how the Tamron is comparable to the Canon and costs $600 less but if I really wanted the Canon, he'd have one tomorrow afternoon. Since I planned on being 500 miles farther south the following afternoon, and I needed the lens, I bought it. I now have the Canon lens along with the Tamron lens and I have no complaints with the Tamron, although the Canon is definitely better than the Tamron. Several years later I told the lens story to a friend who works in a camera store about 40 miles from my home, a store that specializes in Canon gear but also carries some Tamron and Sigma lenses and he told me the stores profit margin on the lenses and even though the Canon costs $600 more than the Tamron, the store makes more on the Tamron, and this is no different with Nikkor lenses.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2017 06:25:38   #
Robert Bailey
 
I have 3 Nikon DSLR bodies including a D7100.
I gradually came to realize that the "kit" 18 to 140 mm was horrible.
I replaced it with two lenses that are superb-
a Sigma 18-35 mm f 1.8 (new) and
a Sigma 50-150 mm f 2.8 (used).

| Reply
Oct 18, 2017 06:35:06   #
DaveO (a regular here)
 
Robert Bailey wrote:
I have 3 Nikon DSLR bodies including a D7100.
I gradually came to realize that the "kit" 18 to 140 mm was horrible.
I replaced it with two lenses that are superb-
a Sigma 18-35 mm f 1.8 (new) and
a Sigma 50-150 mm f 2.8 (used).


Not much of a comparison...

| Reply
Oct 18, 2017 07:06:32   #
Robert Bailey
 
DaveO- I'm not sure what you mean, but unlike the original poster
I was not trying to get better "reach"- I have other lenses that can do that.
I was trying to get better sharpness. The Nikon 18-140 is pitiful.
The lenses I replaced it with are significantly better.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2018 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.