DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I support the positive comments regarding this lens. Mine is almost constantly on my Canon SL2.

grberg

I use a Nikon 18-300 on my D500 for little league baseball. I wanted a little more reach so last summer I rented the Tamron 100-400. At 400mm it was equal to my Nikon at 300mm. Good auto focus and vr, and not heavy at all. For the money it looks like the 18-400 and 100-400 are hard to beat. I’m just waiting until the season starts next month to make my purchase.

DBQ49er Loc: Dubuque, IA

Like I said mine is arriving soon. How does one calibrate a lens. I know I just upgraded my firmware on my D5300, it is the most up to date that Nikon has. If anyone can make it easy to understand! Thanks

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Your words, not mine. Never said that.....

So what am I supposed to compare this lens with?

leftj Loc: Texas

Other lenses in the same cost range. Are you really that dumb? You don’t compare a Volkswagon with a Rolls Royce.

DBQ49er Loc: Dubuque, IA

You two need to rent a fighting cage and have at it. The rest of us just want good info and not to be your referee.

leftj Loc: Texas

I get it. You want good info, not some jerk with an agenda calling a lens a piece of crap because it doesn’t have the build and image quality of two and three thousand dollar pro lenses.

Travelin' Bud Loc: New Mexico, Central Ohio & Eastern Kentucky

Yep. Have had mine for a month now and am absolutely enjoying it!

(Download)


(Download)

golfbum301

Wow! Thanks for all the info, it will help me make my decision. I did not want to spend thousands for a new lens and I understand the shortcomings of this lens. I think it will fit fit my needs since I have no intention of selling my photos and I am truly a beginner at stepping up in my photog
needs. I guess if I can gain enough experience in the future I may better understand all the comments that I have seen. Thanks again to all for your help. Now we can turn it down a notch.

MikeC

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The lens does not weigh 4 pounds or anywhere near it. It weighs 1.56 pounds or 25 ounces. My Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 both weigh more.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I have this lens. I use it only occasionally when I require a general walk around lens with this amount of reach and am willing to accept its somewhat reduced image quality. At its price point, and for what it does it is an excellent choice and a good value, BUT don't expect it to work anywhere nearly as well as a more dedicated, higher end lens like the Canon 100-400mm. Regardless of what some have suggested, the lens is only moderately sharp, especially at 400mm, and is not sharp across the frame at any distance. It is a crop superzoom, although perhaps the best of its type. For those who extol its sharpness I suggest they either lack the experience or equipment to recognize true sharpness and the limitations of this lens. As a plus though, for a superzoom with such a huge focal range, the amount of distortion is very well controlled and is a big improvement over Tamron's 16-300mm lens. in the end this is a very worthwhile product if you don't set your expectations too high.

The attached images were from the same vantage point. The first at 18mm and the second at 400mm. In the first you can barely see the ship in the center. The original raw images were processed in DXO Photolab. The edits were primarily to micro contrast, and sharpness.

18mm

(Download)

400mm

(Download)

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Really, resorting to name calling? So big of you. Have a nice day and try getting a life.

leftj Loc: Texas

Oh - what name did I call you?

cajunjames Loc: Prairieville, La

when I had a 90-D that lens stayed on it. It is an excellent walk around lens