Dick B

This summer I have a trip to Alaska and I consider it an excellent excuse to buy a very long zoom lens for wildlife.
I have train trip thru Denali, and a one way cruise back To Vancover. So 2 questions
1) Do I really need a very long zoom when I already have the Nikon 18-300?
2) I've discovered that like cameras there is a grey market in new lenses. The Tamron 150-600 is $ 1400 and right now there is $ 100 rebate promotion. It comes with Tamron US warranty for 6 years, however I've found the same new lens with ZERO warranty for as low as $849 with free shipping. Normally I'd like to stick with the US Warranty lens , however that price differential is so great that I'm heavily biased toward taking my chances if view of fact that lenses rarely fail unless dropped and then warranty is not the issue.
Thoughts on either question?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Would it be possible to purchase a drop/spill warranty on the cheaper lens? That’s something I would opt for on the full price lens anyway.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

To answer your first question, YES. 300mm isn't going to do it for you for wildlife.
I see you have Nikon gear. You can buy a 200-500mm Nikon for the same price as the Tamron, as far as I'm concerned there is no need for further discussion.

wwright Loc: Tucson

I have the Tamron lens, and it is heavy (approx. 4 lbs). It takes its toll on your arms, using it without a monopod or tripod; resulting in some slightly fuzzy pictures ( I thought I was steady enough for the shutter speed). Perhaps renting one for the trip would work, or renting before buying to see if its what you want?

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

If the $900± lens is pre-owned , be aware that there are moving and powered parts of the autofocusing mechanism and those parts have a limit to their lifespan. Their lifespan is pretty long but not infinite.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I have both, used them extensively and would choose the 200-500.

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

The low cost lightweight superzooms - The two Tamrons, the two Sigmas, the Nikkor 200-500. When I was looking at getting one, I looked at all except for the Tamron G2 since it was not available at the time (summer 2016). I have a 600mm F4 to compare with, and was looking for something that came close. The Sigma Contemporary and the original Tamron weren't even close. The Nikkor was pretty good, but the build quality was not what I was looking for - I needed to get a lens that I could use in snow, mist, drizzle and light rain. The Nikkor didn't offer that, and it was less sharp at 500 than at around 450mm, and it was much sharper stopped down to F8. When I attached my camera to the Sigma Sport I was very surprised at how good it was. Wide open at 600mm it was very good, and by F7.1 it was excellent. So I bought one. I've since shot with a borrowed Tamron G2, and had it been available in 2016, I would have gotten it if only because it was 2 lbs lighter. Similar image quality as the Sport, good build quality, very manageable. Sorry to say, the two Nikkors I had tried just didn't cut it on image quality or build - and at the end of the day it was still only a 500mm lens. The G2 and Sport were for all intents and purposes as good as my 600mm F4, with the exception that I can use the 600mmF4 in really crappy light.

I take it you are using a crop sensor camera. No, the 18-300 will disappoint. Either the G2 or the Sport will not. The 200-500 will have you wondering what you are missing.

I would avoid anything grey market - it's nothing but trouble when it breaks or fails.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

1. Yes, if you are serious about your images .....As an extensive traveling lens on a crop frame camera I would recommend the smaller/lighter/cheaper Tamron 100-400.

..

rickgc Loc: Northeast PA

I took the same land cruise. Used the Tamron 150-600 most of the time as the creatures are not usually that close. I even used it on some landscape shots.

MDI Mainer

I've had nothing but good results with my gray-market Tamron lenses, including the 150-600.

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

You are taking two big of lens with you. Trust me, I have been on that trip twice and your taking too large a lens. If you own Nikon, buy the 200-500. If not, buy the Tamron 18-400 would be a better choice.
I never take large equipment on a trip. The following camera will do everything you need and cost you a LOT less and do a better job. Trust me.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1437917-REG/sony_dsc_hx99_b_cyber_shot_dsc_hx99_digital_camera.html

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

The 18-400's not bad, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 200-500 or 150-600. Definitely easier to travel with the 18-400, but that's where the benefits end. Just my opinion and I own all three.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

If you’re using a crop sensor, check out the Tamron 18-400. You’ll lighten your load substantially and it gets good reviews. 300 isn’t quite enough.

Sunnely Loc: Wisconsin

Agree! If less weight and hassle of carrying extra lens is more important to you, Tamron 18-400 with its stabilization system should suffice.

DENALI EXCURSION: I am assuming you will be riding in a school-bus type transportation along with 50 other tourists (correct me if I am wrong). The bus will stop on the side of the road if an animal (usually one of the "Big 5" in AK), is sighted. If not a safe place, you will be taking pictures inside the bus. Most oftentimes, the animals are not too far away and you can take decent pictures with this lens. Such as when we spotted a bull moose about 10-15 feet away from the bus. Then right after that, a grey fox came walking toward our bus. On a separate incident, we followed a grey fox walking on the road for about 15 minutes. I must admit that there were few occasions that I wish I had a longer lens especially when we sighted a couple bears were feasting on a caribou so far away.

You will be allowed to disembark only at designated areas to take scenic pictures such as the Polychrome mountain and Mt. Denali. If weather cooperates, you will be lucky to see and take pictures of Mt. Denali. For these occasions, Tamron 18-400 would be sufficient. For convenience, less weight, and all-around lens, Tamron 18-400 should be the one.

FYI: I am not a professional photographer.

Tip: If you can sit in front, best view. Usually the very front seats are reserved for the staff. Not uncommon, they will offer seats to someone (and companion) who has disability to sit in front. (This is exactly what happened with us as one has a really bum knee.) But, be generous with the tip. The view in front is breathtaking. In between shots and during a lull, this will be a great time to take GoPro video or a cell phone video (but need to attach it to an stabilizer such as EVO for jitter-less production). This is exactly what I did (Samsung S8 plus with EVO stabilizer) with amazing results. I then mixed the pictures with some short video clips in a Blu-ray production using ProShow Producer by Photodex and -- Voila!

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

For wildlife and birding (other than in a zoo perhaps or where you can get close) 300mm is a bit short even on a DX body....I have the Tammy 150-600 G2 it is an excellent lens - I know the Nikon 200-500 is an excellent lens too optically, but it is a bit heavier and bigger than the Tammy, and even though it is 100mm shorter it is plenty long enough on a DX body especially. The Nikon does not have weather sealing and fluorine coatings unlike the Tammy, for about the same price. As some pointed out the Nikon is probably under priced. I suggest going to a nearby camera store if you can and try out both lenses on the body you use. I may still get the Nikon one of these days just for the hell of it!

BTW if you get the Tammy get the tap in console too (in my case it was a freebie thrown it at B&H at the time last year otherwise about $50-60)....you can update the lens firmware and adjust focusing as well.

(Download)