ecunnar

I have a question about a Tamron Di II B016 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD for Canon. Is this a good lens and is it better than a Canon "kit" lens that comes with either a T5 or T7? Also, what would be a good price for it in excellent used condition? Thank you!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

First thing first. I do not use independent lenses nor I am a Canon user. My comments could be useful but even so you should be listening to others so that you can make a judgement regarding the Tamron 16-300.
Zooms have gotten better. In the past I would have never given a though to a zoom in this range. Today I can say that although not spectacular these types of lenses do a reasonable job and the images in general are very acceptable especially at the short range.

Modern lenses can do a great job if we do our part. I have seen images made with this lens and they have been very acceptable to me. It is better than a kit lens for general purpose since you will be carrying a lens with a very versatile focal range that will cover subjects between 16 and 300 mm.
At times there are incompatibilities between the lens and camera and for cameras of the future of the same brand the lens could be rendered useless. There must be a reason why the lenses made by camera manufacturers for their cameras are more expensive.

I do not know the retail price of the lens or its value in the second hand market.

Doc Mck Loc: Terrell,Texas

I don’t know about this particular lens, however, I have several Tamron lenses and am very happy with them. I am a Canon DSLR user. No problems so far.

Doc Mck Loc: Terrell,Texas

I googled it. It s a highly rated all around lens that. Retails for about $500. Personally I bought canon28-300 for $1500. If I had known about thee Tamron I would have tried it first. I am 78 yrs old an have always tried to be thrifty when possible.

ELNikkor

You're right about the improvement in image quality of the "super-zooms" by all manufacturers today. My usual deterrent is not as much the image quality as it is the rather small maximum aperture, (5.6, or 6.3), a variable aperture as you zoom, the size/weight, the speed (or lack thereof!) of AF, and the expense. I usually say, you only take photos at 1 focal length at a time, and it only takes 10 seconds to change lenses, so why lug around a lens with all those disadvantages? The one time I might "need" a superzoom would be the rare occasion I would be on the sidelines of a soccer game, when the action so quickly can go from "way out there" to 3 feet away.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...Tamron Di II B016 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD for Canon. Is this a good lens..." ecunnar
basically no, it is one of the worst optically preforming lens I've seen tested on DxOmark... See below...

"...what would be a good price for it in excellent used condition?" I can help here...
B&H has one for sale in "Good" condition (Used with moderate wear but clean) for $340
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/1029406

Bottom Line? This lens preforms well from 16mm to ~ 40mm wide open to f/5.6

Hope this helps ecunnar...
All the best on your journey
.

Tamron Di II B016 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD for Canon (Results over it's entire FL range) on a Canon EOS 7D Mark II

(Download)

Tamron Di II B016 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD for Canon on a Canon EOS 7d Mark II wide open at 300mm

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

I don’t own this lens but I have extensively used both Nikon 18-200 & 18-300 lenses before I sold most of my DX kit. They were good for travel photography when an all purpose lens was very handy. However, once I purchased a D750 and Nikon & Sigma Art telephotos such as Nikon 16-35 F/4, Nikon 70-200 f/4, Sigma 24-105 f/4 and Sigma 24-35 f/2 I never went back to these all purpose zooms for travel photography because the image quality just does not come close to my FX kit. Confession, I still own the FX kit but I’ve switched to a G9 and M4/3 PL lenses for travel but the focal range of these lenses remains low. I happen to like my current Tamron 100-400 and Sigma glass so I don’t have a bias against third party lenses. The one exception to the above is my wife’s Olympus 12-100 (24-200 35mm equiv) which is truly outstanding. All these choices are compromises but you might save yourself some money and frustration by trying out the various options before you purchase. Good luck.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I cannot tell you much about the Tamron lens... I've never used it and frankly would never own one of those "ultra wide range" zooms, which are all about convenience and compromise in many other ways to cover such a massive range of focal lengths. When new, I think the Tamron sold for about $599. It is now discontinued and appears to be relatively hard to find for Canon (it available for Nikon). B&H Photo has a used one, though it's in Sony A-mount, for $339. Tamron has probably superseded that lens with their 18-400mm "ultra zoom" (which also sells for $599 new).

Personally I don't "get" the appeal of "one lens to do it all". The whole point of buying an interchangeable lens camera is to be able to adapt it for different uses by changing the lens! I suppose that a "do it all" lens might be the only possible choice if forced to travel very light or working in a tight situation where carrying add'l lenses or changing lenses is impossible, yet the wide range might be needed. If it were me, I'd just get a quality non-interchangeable lens camera (a "bridge" point-n-shoot) instead.

I can tell you a little about the Canon kit lenses that are usually bundled with their most entry-level T7, etc. cameras. The EF-S 18-55mm IS "II" lens is okay.... it's plasticky, has a rather small f/3.5-5.6 variable apertures and uses slower, noisier micro motor autofocus... But it's small, light, covers a useful "general purpose" range of focal lengths from moderately wide to short telephoto, has decent image quality and has helpful image stabilization. The T7 (and predecessors) camera is ONLY sold in kit with at least this lens. In other words, Canon does not offer the camera without a lens, in "body only" configuration. If you see the camera offered without lens, it's a kit the retailer has split up to sell separately (which an authorized dealer would probably be prohibited from doing under their agreement with Canon).

The entry-level cameras are also offered by Canon in two-lens kits, the first being that EF-S 18-55mm "II". The second lens in "official" kits sold by authorized dealers is always the EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 "III". To put it very bluntly, this is the cheapest and one of the worst lenses Canon makes. It's certainly their worst telephoto zoom. It's cheapened in every possible way. It has slow f/4.5-5.6 variable apertures. It also uses slower, noisier micro motor autofocus drive (both STM and USM autofocus drive are faster, smoother, more accurate and quieter). It also lacks image stabilization, which is interesting because IS is most valuable on a telephoto lens and even the "lowly" EF-S 18-55mm II has it. Plus, Canon previously made another version of this lens that has IS and only cost a few $ more. They also still make a slightly more expensive version that has faster USM focus drive (but not IS, go figure). Unfortunately, this lens also has some of the worst image quality of any Canon zoom lens... especially towards the 300mm telephoto end of the range.

If bought separately, the EF 75-300mm III lens (not to be confused with several much better EF 70-300mm zooms) sells for $189. It can often be found used for under $100. Bryan Carnathan has detailed reviews of virtually every Canon camera and lens made the last 15 or 20 years, but couldn't be bothered to write up anything about this lens. He simply refers to the slightly better USM version of it, which he feels has the same image quality and general performance, aside from its faster and quieter autofocus. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-Lens-Review.aspx He does provide test shot image examples done with the EF 75-300 III for comparison with other lenses of your choice, including that Tamron. However, note that the Tamron has only marginally better image quality (but it does have VC image stabilization, a much wider range of focal lengths and potentially better autofocus drive) https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=953&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=1).

The EF-S 18-55mm II lens sells for $199 new and can be found for considerably less used. There is a very thorough review of this lens here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-II-Lens-Review.aspx

One step up from the T7 camera and it's kit lenses is the ultra-compact Canon SL3... the smallest and lightest DSLR made by anyone (it even rivals the size and weight of some mirrorless). The SL3 camera itself has a lot of improvements over the T7. First, it has a self-cleaning senor... which the T7 lacks. Second, the SL3 uses a "modern" Digic 8 processor, four generations newer than the Digic 4 used in the T7 (Canon must have a huge stockpile of those old processors left over from 2008 when they were first introduced). I don't know if Moore's Law applies to the processors in cameras... but it generally says that chips double in capacity while halving in price every two years. The SL3 also has an articulated LCD Touch Screen on the back... where the T7's LCD isn't articulated, isn't a Touch Screen and is slightly lower resolution. Just about the only things the two camera share is that both are 24MP and both use a similar, rather basic but capable 9-point AF system. The SL3's AF can focus in slightly lower light conditions and its viewfinder magnification is slightly greater. Note that thanks to it's much newer processor the SL3 is likely to provide faster AF with the system in most situations and with most lenses.

The SL3 also has considerably higher usable ISO (native range 100 to 25600 vs 100 to 6400 in T7). The SL3 also can shoot continuously at 5 frames per second, where the T7 is limited to a slow 3 fps.

When it comes to video, the SL3 can shoot 4K, while the T7 maxes out with HD resolution. The SL3 also has both a built-in microphone and a socket to connect an external microphone. The T7 only provides a built-in mic. Surprisingly, the SL3 even uses a larger, higher capacity battery (often super compact cameras use smaller batteries).

The SL3 is also more power efficient, so is rated to get approx. 1630 shots per charge, which is more than 1000 more than the 500 shots per charge the T7 is rated to give. (Note: Standardized CIPA testing methods used. It's typical for users who employ reasonable power savings such as minimizing use of the built-in flash and the rear LCD screen to get a lot more shots per charge.)

I know the T7 doesn't have it, and don't think the SL3 does either.... Other Canon DSLRs since the 7D Mark II (intro'd in 2014) have "Flicker Reduction", which solves an exposure problem that's plagued film and digital photographers trying to shoot under fluorescent and similar (sodium vapor, etc.) lighting. This lighting cycles on and off rapidly... 60 hertz in the US (50 hertz in some other parts of the world). As a result, when shooting under that lighting images are often incorrectly exposed... until now. Canon introduced a feature on the 7DII that detects the cycling of the lighting and times the shutter release to match the peak output of the lights. This eliminates almost all exposure problems! It's great and I use it a lot with my 7DII's, shooting sports under various lighting. Unfortunately the T7 doesn't have this feature and I don't think the SL3 does either. All other Canon DSLRs and most of the current mirrorless do. Nikon and Sony have been adopting something similar in their cameras. (Note: This is not the same as an anti-flicker feature for video that's been in various cameras for longer.)

The Canon SL3 also is offered in one lens and two-lens kits. But it gets better lenses than the T7. Also called an "EOS 250D" outside N. America, the SL3 uses an EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS "STM" that has faster, quieter autofocus than the lens with the T7. Likewise, the telephoto in the two lens kit is the much, much better EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. Not only does this telephoto zoom have faster, quieter AF and image stabilization, it also is a much newer design with far better image quality and even closer focusing capability.

Yes, the SL3 and the better lenses bundled with it certainly do cost more. The T7 in two lens kit can be bought for about $550, while the SL3 is selling body-only for $600, or costs $700 with the EF-S 18-55mm lens, or costs $950 in the two-lens kit. Even so, if at all possible, I'd recommend spending the extra to get much more full featured and upgraded camera, along with better lenses.

Note: I have long been a fan of Tamron lenses... I used a number of different manual focus Tamron's back in the 1980s and 1990s. Most were their professional grade "SP". I still have several copies of their manual focus 90mm macro lens (including one I've used regularly on Canon DLSRs and currently have set up for use on Canon M5 mirrorless camera). I also have their modern (autofocus) 60mm f/2 macro lens. I appreciate their 6-year warranty (Canon and Nikon lenses are typically warranted 1 year, though there may be ways to get an add'l year's coverage.)

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I cannot speak to the Tamron for a Canon as I am a Nikon shooter. I've read Nikon reviews for this lens and most of the reviews say that is "acceptably" or "reasonably" sharp. All of the reviews recommend the Nikon version of this lens, especially when you compare the cost the Nikon equivalents. (Remember, I read Nikon reviews of the lens).

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I use a Sigma 18-300 zoom with great results.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I went to the Tamron 28-300mm lens years ago. It is on my camera 95+% of the time. It and a Canon wide angle is all I have taken to Europe and Asia as well as all over the US.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

I do trust DXO. I have used them to help me select which lens I want to buy within a focal length or zoom range. Their tests and recommendations are not based upon personal bias or preference or brand name. - So, before I buy, I look at the DXO ratings for all brand lenses that will fit my camera. DXO usually has this combination available for direct comparison. My #1 interest is the Resolution - best resolution I can afford. So, I click on this column in the ratings and all listed test results are rearranged to use Resolution as the #1 characteristic for all brands/models that are being compared.

For used prices, I'd suggest a search on Google and ebay to see what they are selling for.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Just to be clear, when discussing camera and lens ratings the name of the company is DXOMark, not DXO. DXO (short for DXO Labs) is the software manufacturer of PhotoLab. DXO Labs split from DXOMark in late 2017. They have been two completely separate companies since then.

billmck Loc: Central KY

Well, you'll always get a lot of answers to questions such as this, usually categorized as "OEM lenses vs. third party lenses", and "super zooms". Everyone will have a different position, based on what they bought and use.

I have owned the Tamron 18-270, 16-300 and now the 18-400. I think it's fair to say that the quality has improved with each generation, and for my money, the current 18-400 is the best of the trio. Having said that, I found my 16-300 very usable and kept it on my D7100 most of the time. I don't take photos to blow up to large print sizes, but instead for my own enjoyment, usually on a computer screen. I'm sure fixed focal length lenses (vs. super zooms) are sharper for their focal length, and I'm also sure that lenses from manufacturers such as Nikon and Canon are better than third-party lenses, but whether or not you need that is determined by how you use the shots you take. I can tell you it's really nice to be able to do a wide-angle shot and a telephoto shot without having to change lenses or carry extra lenses with you when you're traveling.