Nikon vs Tamron lenses (Page 2): As already mentioned, the Tamron 18-400mm. Price is $649, new.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

As already mentioned, the Tamron 18-400mm. Price is $649, new.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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.

I own the Nikon 28-300, use it on the D810 and get great results. I have used it on the D500 but it becomes a 42mm at the wide end but 450 at the top end.
IMHO, Nikon lenses will last longer, stay in specs longer, and be worth more on trade and when you sell it.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

I have a Sigma 28-70mm f 2.8 that I bought in 1995.
Still works fine at 22 years old.
I also have a number of Tamron lenses as well as Nikon lenses.
I have an adaptor so I can use my 16 Pentax 645 lenses on my Nikon body.
I have another adaptor so I can use my 4 Konica lenses (that someone gave me) on my Nikon body.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

On my list is used 70-200 Nikon F2.8

I sold my Nikon 18-200 and bought the Tamron 18-400. It’s well made and I’m happy with it.

I’m considering a wide angle purchase later this year. Want the Tamron or Nikon 2.8 but the Tamron 10-24 is more in-line with my budget. I shoot with the D500.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

janiebutz wrote:

Thank you all for your responses. Now comes the hard part....deciding! At this point I think the 16-300 wins!

I enjoy mine and it is very practical.
Have fun! 😀

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Do not let a salesman at a camera store to confuse you. Tamron has great lenses but they are not better than similar Nikon lenses. Their price difference should tell you something!
The 18-140 is a great optic. I do not know how much reach you need but the 70-300 with your camera will give you a good reach. Nikon and Tamron make good 70-300 VR lenses but I am biased to Nikon and that would be what I would buy.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I have used Nikon equipment ever since my second SLR - the F301. I my first Nikon DSLR was a D70s. Except for a brief period using a Sigma lens, I have used only Nikkor glass and nothing with a variable aperture. I buy pre+owned/demo mostly and have never questioned the IQ. There is a reason that Nikon and Canon lenses cost more. As your camera store sales rep who makes the glass and grinds it for Tamron lenses. And whether the lens electronics are designed for the camera bodies they fit or are “reverse engineered”.

billmck Loc: Central KY

I bought a D7100 kit, which included the Nikon 18-140. It’s never been out of the box, as I bought the Tamron 16-300 and use it almost exclusively. While I recognize the Nikon lenses are generally higher quality, I’m thoroughly satisfied with my Tamron. I’m considering upgrading to the new Tamron 18-400, but am a bit concerned with the extra weight.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

"For the price" is always a tricky statement because it really doesn't take into consideration what you want from your photography. I use the Tamron 16-300 on my d7100 and have been very happy with the results. I like the extra reach even more than the wide angle. I also carry a Nikon 50mm 1.4 to use at night and in low light situations because it's so much faster than the 16-300. For a longer lens the Tamron isn't that heavy but it it an issue. I just got back from three weeks in Morocco where we walked every day over cobblestone streets, trails and desert and at 70 I must admit that I felt the weight--but I made it and do not plan on changing anytime soon. If I was buying a new walk around lens now and didn't have any to start with I'd go with the 16-400. I will say that the 16-300 was fast enough to capture pretty good shots from bouncing four-wheel drive vehicles and from buses going highway speeds. Of course if you want more from your images you may need to look for more specific lenses at a different price range.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Robert Bailey wrote:

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.

I was just pointing out that to compare those two lenses to an 18-140 is not a fair comparison.

Apples and oranges. It doesn't compare with my 24-70 or 70-200 2.8's either...

CaptainBobBrown

Having experimented with 3rd party lenses and compared them with much higher priced Nikon lenses I've concluded that I'll only use Nikon lenses because the image quality is demonstrably better for the bird, wildlife, and landscape photography I do. This is particularly the case for birds and wildlife where I frequently am cropping as much as possible but still want as much clarity and detail as I can get. I think the same is true for Canon shooters preferring Canon lenses when they can afford them. However, for more casual shooting, and if that's all you do then the 3rd party lenses can be a good choice, picked wisely.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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.

99% of all lenses are better than 98% of all photographers

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

billnikon wrote:

99% of all lenses are better than 98% of all photographers

100% of mine are like that, but it leads to more practice!

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I agree. I sell pro Video Equipmnet and am pretty good at it. Many companies offer “SPIFFS” which is backend money to the sales person. Some sales people will push the product that offers best SPIFF.

I mostly own and use Nikon lenses for my D500 but, just bought the Tamron 18-400mm and sold my Nikon 18-200mm. So far I’m happy with the Tamron. It’s the first non-Nikon lens I’ve owned. Seems well built and images are as good if not better than my older Nikon 18-200 was. This has me researching other Tamron lenses which I find strange to be saying. LOL

camerapapi wrote:

Do not let a salesman at a camera store to confuse you. Tamron has great lenses but they are not better than similar Nikon lenses. Their price difference should tell you something!
The 18-140 is a great optic. I do not know how much reach you need but the 70-300 with your camera will give you a good reach. Nikon and Tamron make good 70-300 VR lenses but I am biased to Nikon and that would be what I would buy.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

In my opinion, the old Tamron's were ho-hum, but the new Tamron SP lenses are excellent and better than Nikon. On my D810 I had the Nikon trinity, and now on my D850 I currently have the SP Tamron 45mm and the SP Tamron 70-200mm. I now have the SP Tamron 24-70mm on order.