Tamron 16-300 vs 18-400 should I move up ? would it be a move up? I have the 16-300 on my 7DmkII and have been very happy with the overall performance for and yes it is not as sharp...

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I have the 16-300 on my 7DmkII and have been very happy with the overall performance for and yes it is not as sharp as my Canon 100-400L it's also not as heavy. My question for those that have shot both, is the image quality overall, same, better or worse with the 18-400 than with the 16-300 ? I've been through the archives but still have the same question.

Joe Blow

I suggest you do your own comparison. Rent the 18-400 for a weekend and shoot both. Just go for a walk and get the feel for them. One thing to keep in mind is most zooms tend to start falling off in sharpness as they get to their extreme. So you would ant to check how sharp each is at 250mm and 300mm. Does the sharpness at 400 depreciate noticeably?

I suspect you won't find anyone with both in their kit as they are competing, not complimentary lenses.

mleuck

If you have to ask, then you have answered your own question.

Joe Blow

mleuck wrote:

If you have to ask, then you have answered your own question.

That is an unfair response. The OP asked because they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

marxgo Loc: Central Iowa

I have the Tamron 16-300 on my Canon T4i, but this winter I was wishing for further reach. I opted to get the Nikon P900 (refurbished to save $) and I love it. Lightweight and the pictures are sharp. Not to mention amazing how far away I can be from the Eagles I was wanting to shoot.

dlmorris Loc: Loma Linda, Ca

I've been trying to find out that same question. Looking for some real world comparisons. Not interested in some different camera, just mostly about the sharpness of the new lens vs the older one. I do like the visual focus settings on the 16-300. Much easier to use when I am using it for star photography.

Toby

Joe Blow wrote:

That is an unfair response. The OP asked because they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

AMEN

3dees

I have the Tamron 16-300 and love it. I considered the 18-400 but lusted for the Sigma 100-400. the Tamron is my walk around lens. the Sigma is light enough to carry without a problem even with my 68 year old bad back. both the 16-300 and 18-400 are decent lenses, but neither are as good as the 100-400.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

I have the same dilemma on my Nikon d7100 and hope to resolve it this week. I will be renting the Tamron 18-400 and shooting for a day switching back and forth between my Tamron 16-300 and the rental Tamron 18-400. I will specially be looking at macro type situations as that's one area the 16-300 is supposed to be better. I'll also be trying to determine if the additional 100mm is worth buying a new lens. On my crop camera I expect it will make a significant difference but I must see it for myself before I decide.

Just be sure you know why you need (or want--GAS and all) the extra 100mm because if you don't know that then you're probably fine with your 16-300. I want it for African safari and my last trip to Africa convinced me I need more reach but I can't afford the extra weight or to change lenses in the field. Enjoy the hunt.

leftj Loc: Texas

NormanTheGr8 wrote:

I have the 16-300 on my 7DmkII and have been very happy with the overall performance for and yes it is not as sharp as my Canon 100-400L it's also not as heavy. My question for those that have shot both, is the image quality overall, same, better or worse with the 18-400 than with the 16-300 ? I've been through the archives but still have the same question.

I had the 16-300mm on my 80D and moved up to the 18-400mm a few months ago. The 18-400 is just as good or better throughout the zoom range and coupled with the extra reach I recommend it as a good upgrade.

Toby

leftj wrote:

I had the 16-300mm on my 80D and moved up to the 18-400mm a few months ago. The 18-400 is just as good or better throughout the zoom range and coupled with the extra reach I recommend it as a good upgrade.

Thanks for posting. I am a few days from getting one.

wkillham

Joe Blow wrote:

That is an unfair response. The OP asked because they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

I wish there was a “like” button. The snarky responses are really turning me off to this forum.

wkillham

jaycoffman wrote:

I have the same dilemma on my Nikon d7100 and hope... (show quote)

I rented the 18-400 for my D7200. I loved it. It focused faster that my 18-200 Nikkor or my 70-200/f2.8. It also had less distortion at 200 than the 70-200. I opted for a used 18-300 3.5-5.6 Nikkor since I like heavy expensive stuff that says Nikon on the front. The only issue with the Tamron was the stabilization. The image shakes around in the viewfinder briefly which took some getting used to.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

NormanTheGr8 wrote:

I have the 16-300 on my 7DmkII and have been very happy with the overall performance for and yes it is not as sharp as my Canon 100-400L it's also not as heavy. My question for those that have shot both, is the image quality overall, same, better or worse with the 18-400 than with the 16-300 ? I've been through the archives but still have the same question.

I've owned both, and hands down, it's the 18-400. Pic's are better, and the 18-400 acts like it's an f2.8!! IMHO. My 7D II likes it alot more than it ever did the 16-300.

tims.ak Loc: Butte, Alaska

leftj wrote:

I had the 16-300mm on my 80D and moved up to the 18-400mm a few months ago. The 18-400 is just as good or better throughout the zoom range and coupled with the extra reach I recommend it as a good upgrade.

I also had the 16-300 on my 80D, I really liked it but was able to trade it in for a Canon 24-70 L. After missing the extra zoom I purchased the 18-400. My impression is that the new one is not as sharp and it also lacks the wider view. It doesn't seem as well made but that is just an impression. Overall the lens is light weight and easy to carry on the camera. The zoom adjustment is not as smooth through the entire range. It is comfortable to use even with the focus ring up front. The focus is a little off, I bought the Tarmon tap-in console today so I could do the firmware upgrade and try some minor adjustments on the focus. I've only tried shooting with it hand held so far. I'm sure it would be sharper with a mono or tripod but if you're using it for an everyday shooter you probably won't have one. I'm not sure it's a move up, unless you have extra money to burn. You could get a better used lens and keep your existing one and have the best of both.