What do you think of this multipurpose lens? Is it worth it or are they trying to take on too much?
cony25 wrote:
What do you think of this multipurpose lens? Is it worth it or are they trying to take on too much?
I bought an 18-400 for Nikon last summer. Had a lot of issues with auto focus. Constant hunting and frequent blurred images at the 400 end. I sent it back and won't be buying another. As to the 16-300 I know nothing.
I have been relatively satisfied with the Tamron 18-400 although it’s a little stiff sometimes. It’s also aa little soft at 400. But that said, I had it on my D5300 for nine months before needing another lens (for a class). Would I buy it again? Yes. The real strength of this lens is that I could take it and one other on trips — it constitutes travelling light. I took it on two trips to Ireland when I was limited by carry-on restrictions. If I am road tripping; predicting what I will shoot; or staying local, I would be more judicious in my lens choice.
The 18-400 has been reviewed here numerous times with excellent reports. After thousands of shots, it is the only lens my wife takes to Yellowstone. I bring several lenses, but she has no need to switch. From flowers to wildlife it has been an excellent all around lens.
I have the 18-400 Tamron lens for my Nikon 7200. It's my walking around go to lens. I love its overall performance and it's reach is great. Rent it, try it out. That will be your test.
Having seen the Imatest numbers of these two lenses, for all practical purposes, they both have the same resolutions. Cost, size/weight and is 300 enough for what you do ? - are are the real differences here.
.
I had an 18-400 on a 7500 body. Great lens. Price is right too.
Equivalent focal length is 27-600.
Excellent for wildlife
I have the 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Tamron. I mostly use it on a D7200 and am getting good results with it after tuning. I also use it on a D500. I bought it for family vacations when I want to travel light and not have to worry about lens changes. It does have a quirk or two, but nothing that makes me think twice about taking it along. I do pack a nifty as well for those low light indoor situations.
As for 3rd party glass, if you are willing to test and tune you can save some money and get good results. If you are not willing to test and tune, stick with OEM glass.
Longshadow wrote:
18-400???
Yep 18-400. It's been around for about 3 years or so.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
cony25 wrote:
What do you think of this multipurpose lens? Is it worth it or are they trying to take on too much?
It is not about the quality of either lens, it is more about the quality of the photographer.
Only a competent photographer can bring out the quality of most lenses.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
cony25 wrote:
What do you think of this multipurpose lens? Is it worth it or are they trying to take on too much?
Quality is the same. Use either to create a great capture. It’s just a little harder to do that with these.
I have used the 18-400 in many different situations on my Canon 80D & found it unsatisfactory. No very sharp at 300-400 and have considered selling it. It probably needs tuning to my camera....and just haven’t taken the time. I’d be cautious purchasing it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.