Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

This one's been on the back burner, for me, for quite some time. Since it's available in Sony a-mount, and the newer Tamron 18-400 is only available in Canon and Nikon mounts, I've been considering it. But, both the reviews, and comments here, regarding this lens, have been a mixed bag. Sony lenses are quite pricey, and thus - apart from those I already have (18-55 SAM II, 16-105 DT, 18-250 DT) chances are, I won't be getting anymore (apart from a macro or two) but this is one Third Party lens, I keep coming back to, again and again. It's wide enough for most applications where one needs a Wider Length, but only if that 16mm REALLY IS 16mm. But, I suspect it really isn't. So, I am interested to hear from those who have it, use it, and have figured out what it really IS, on the wide end. Also, I'd like to hear your reflections about its performance on the long end, too. Of course, I am considering it for my Sony SLTs, but if you have it on a Nikon or on a Canon - I'd also like to hear your reflections. Best money you ever spent on a lens, or no?

AlexAAA

Blury pictures on tamron

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

This lens is the successor to the Tamron 18-270, which I have. Note that I use in on a Canon APS-C camera. I've taken this lens on two international trips and various hikes, where weight is an issue. I've gotten very satisfactory results.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Across the whole range, Alex - or did you suffer this malady, only, at specific lengths? … If so - which ones?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Dan - not sure what you mean about it being the successor to the 18-270. Both lenses are still produced. So, apart from the fact the 18-270 (which I also have, in EOS mount) is older, and the 16-300 is newer - so, in that sense - the 16-300 FOLLOWED the 18-270, but, the term - successor, usually applies, when the earlier model is removed from the scene, which has not happened to the 18-270. Anyway, your comments - are they in reference to the 18-270 (if so, I agree with you - it's a spectacular lens) or - are they in ref. to the 16-300 this post is about?

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I assumed that Tamron had DC'd the 18-270 because it had introduced the very similar 16-300. I see I was wrong in that regard. My comments are in regard to the 18-270, because I felt (still do) that you will have a similar experience with the 16-300.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Dan - the 18-270 VC PZD is a very popular lens, and is available in all FOUR mounts - Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony. But the FOLLOWER to it - the 16-300 was only made for Canon, Nikon and Sony a-mount. Now, then - the 18-270 (apart from the slippage) is a very fine lens. It's performed flawlessly on my Rebel T3 for the past eight years. I've not yet seen a situation where it did not give me fantastic results. But, that does not necessarily mean I will get the same fine performance with the 16-300 on a Sony a77, or a77 II. What I'm trying to get at here, is - to find out what kind of performance I can expect from it with either Sony. Although you might be qualified to comment on the 18-270, if you don't also own the 16-300 - your comments really don't have any relevance … do you follow? … Apologies for pointing it out, but …

Dan - just looked that up, after I wrote it, and, technically, it would seem the 18-270 Tamron is not available for Pentax. However, Pentax has its own version of the 18-270, and, I believe it's made by Tamron - so - basically - comes out to being the same thing. (I may be wrong, but, I don't think so.)

Tamron also has a hand in making other glass, too - some, for Sony … some for Nikon ….

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

I have this lens and it's my every day lens on my D500, I have had excellent results with it. I only have one other lens and that is a Tamron G1 150-600.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Ah, okay … that's good to know, Cindy … that you've had excellent results with it ….

Well, I say - between the two - it looks as though you have 16 all the way out to 600 covered, then - huh?

Good for you!!!

Have you compared what you get with it, with a lens KNOWN to be 16? … If so - what happened?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Really depends on your tolerance for softness and lens aberrations vs your budget - pretty much like everything else in photography.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Gene - do you actually have this lens, or are you writing this, based on lens tests you've read?

TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Tamron-16-300mm-F3.5-6.3-Di-II-PZD-MACRO_review760.html

This will be your best source for reviews.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

No I haven't...I am an just starting to get into this photography game and only have those two lenses at the moment...but I do have a wide angle on my wish list...just don't know which one to get yet!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

The Sigma 10-20 HSM is hard to beat. And Tamron has recently released their 10-24 in an HLD version!

And, if you don't want to go that wide (some don't) Canon has their amazing 15-85 IS USM … oh, but you have a Nikon D500 … sorry … well, then - the 16-85 VR is always a good choice …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Thanks, Tom … that seems like a fair and equitable write-up and assessment - just what I was looking for.