Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Tamron 16-300 vs 18-400 should I move up ? would it be a move up?
Page <prev 2 of 2
Mar 20, 2018 07:42:16   #
TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX
 
I had the Tamron 18-270 for my SL2, to use as a travel camera -- I LOVED it, but when the 18-400 came out I couldn't resist !!! And I LOVE it !! The extra reach is very fun and so far my images have been Fantastic. Now, it is never going to be as good as an L lens, but the reach is fun and it is a great travel camera. It is light and easy to use.

Reply
Mar 20, 2018 08:55:12   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
tims.ak wrote:
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.
I also had the 16-300 on my 80D, I really liked it... (show quote)


Wow! Just shows how opinions can differ. Your experience with the 18-400mm seems to be completely opposite to yours.

Reply
Mar 20, 2018 12:48:12   #
NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin
 
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.


Thank You

Reply
 
 
Mar 21, 2018 23:30:15   #
fantom Loc: Colorado
 
Joe Blow wrote:
That is an unfair response. The OP asked because they are looking for an answer to a question they have.



Reply
Mar 25, 2018 04:02:45   #
tims.ak Loc: Butte, Alaska
 
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.


Hi Norman, was wondering if you made the plunge? I just spent a week in Kotzebue Ak using the 18-400. It works really well and the extra reach is nice. I tried the tap in console for update but didn't try any different settings. I am getting more used to the lens and the focus is really good. My travel companion tried it out and ended up ordering the lens. Should arrive Monday. I used the lens tonight shooting some owls in the sunset and was pretty impressed even with the low light. I'd be curious to know how it compares to your 100-400 L. Bet it's definitely much lighter to carry. After spending more time using it I'm thinking overall it's probably worth the upgrade and you can easily sell your 16-300. So far I'm happy with my swap. Good luck. Curious to know what you think if you pick one up.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
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
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.