Tamron 16-300 Macro Zoom: I am in the throes of trying to decide whether to get rid of my D7200 and various lenses and replace it with a mirrorless camera and lenses, or keep the D7200...

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I am in the throes of trying to decide whether to get rid of my D7200 and various lenses and replace it with a mirrorless camera and lenses, or keep the D7200 and get an “all-on-one” lens, such as the Tamron 16-300 macro and use it as my sole lens. My question to all of you is, is this a reasonable lens and how does it perform in the “macro” mode. Or at least for close up photos? I know all of that about long zooms having issues regarding vignetting, softness, distortion, etc., at the extreme ends. What I’m trying to do is lighten up my load by using such a lens as my only lens. The other choice could be the 18-400 Tamron, but from what I’ve read about it, it doesn’t indicate that it’s got a “macro” mode or is close focusing. The Nikon 18-300 is a good lens, for sure, but it’s expensive and much heavier than the Tamron. So I’m eliciting comments from those of you that have either of these two lenses. Thanks.

mymike Loc: Tucson, AZ

I use the Tamron 16-300 as my travel lens. I have not used the macro feature. It is good for travel but is still a bit heavy. My everyday lens is the 18-140 on my Nikon D5500. I like the sharpness and the weight.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

mymike wrote:

I use the Tamron 16-300 as my travel lens. I have not used the macro feature. It is good for travel but is still a bit heavy. My everyday lens is the 18-140 on my Nikon D5500. I like the sharpness and the weight.

I also have the 18-140 lens, and consider it to be a very good lens. I’m just wonderilng if something like the Tamron might be a good substitute, and provide longer reach without having to always change lenses.

3dees

I have this lens as a walk around on my D7200 and love it, but it's not a true macro. I have a dedicated macro so I never really tried this lens for anything except some close ups. I guess you can get some extension tubes, but it will not take the place of a true macro.

mudduck

As I mentioned in another post, I bought a Sony A7RII with full auto adapters and they work very well, cant say other mirrorless cameras would have the same results though.

Vienna74 Loc: Bountiful, Utah now Panama

I have been using the 18-140 as my carry-around lens on my D7200 for several years (good lens) and also picked up an older Nikon 105 micro (love it!) for true macro stuff. Yesterday I purchased a used Tamron 16-300 from B&H to get that longer reach (arriving Friday). I may end up selling the 18-140.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Dxomark has rated the Tamron 16-300 mounted on a Nikon D7100.
I presume the results would be similar if mounted on a D7200.
It gets a score of "14" (more or less out of 50)- in other words 28% on the final exam.
I guess you could call that "less than mediocre".

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron/Tamron-16-300mm-F35-63-Di-II-VC-PZD-MACRO-Model-B016-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100__865

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Wingpilot wrote:

I am in the throes of trying to decide whether to ... (show quote)

The 18-400mm is newer and has a longer reach. As for the "macro" feature, are you sure it's really macro - 1:1? Many lenses use that term even though they aren't true macros. Expecting one lens to do everything perfectly could lead to disappointment. As always, I recommend reading reviews and comparisons.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

I've never seen a zoom lens that is capable of "true" macro.
They should call it "close-up", not macro.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

jerryc41 wrote:

The 18-400mm is newer and has a longer reach. As for the "macro" feature, are you sure it's really macro - 1:1? Many lenses use that term even though they aren't true macros. Expecting one lens to do everything perfectly could lead to disappointment. As always, I recommend reading reviews and comparisons.

It’s listed as 1:3.4. The designation as “macro” is a marketing ploy.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I only have two lenses. My daily walkaround lens in the Tamron 16-300, and my San Diego National Wildlife Refuge/Ramona Grasslands/Beaches/Zoo/Safari Park/SeaWorld/Discovery Center/Lions Tigers & Bears/Project Wildlife/Sky Hunters lens is the Tamron 150-600 G2.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

jerryc41 wrote:

The 18-400mm is newer and has a longer reach. As for the "macro" feature, are you sure it's really macro - 1:1? Many lenses use that term even though they aren't true macros. Expecting one lens to do everything perfectly could lead to disappointment. As always, I recommend reading reviews and comparisons.

True. I’m not really into true macro, but I do enjoy at least getting close to some things, mostly flowers. I read reviews a lot, but what I really like to read is the comments from others who routinely use a piece of gear, a lens, camera, etc., to get a real world point of view and experience. I don’t believe the 18-400 is billed as “macro,” whereas the 16-300 is.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

russelray wrote:

I only have two lenses. My daily walkaround lens in the Tamron 16-300, and my San Diego National Wildlife Refuge/Ramona Grasslands/Beaches/Zoo/Safari Park/SeaWorld/Discovery Center/Lions Tigers & Bears/Project Wildlife/Sky Hunters lens is the Tamron 150-600 G2.

And that’s what I’m looking for is a decent walk-around lens that frees me from having to lug a bunch of lenses around. How has that lens been working out for you, any particular complaints, high points, low points?

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Robert Bailey wrote:

Dxomark has rated the Tamron 16-300 mounted on a Nikon D7100.
I presume the results would be similar if mounted on a D7200.
It gets a score of "14" (more or less out of 50)- in other words 28% on the final exam.
I guess you could call that "less than mediocre".

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron/Tamron-16-300mm-F35-63-Di-II-VC-PZD-MACRO-Model-B016-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100__865

Holy cow!! After reading the DxOmark review, now I’m really confused. I understand, at least generally, what the graphs mean, and at least basically what their descriptions are saying, but what I’m wondering is what they’re really saying. If one is truly discriminatiing and looking for professional results, this likely will make a huge difference in scrutinizing a photo. But for the average photographer who just likes to take pictures, even from an artistic standpoint, will these “shortcomings” be noticed so much as to make this lens a waste of money and be disappointing? I certainly don’t want to lay out $650.00 only to say, “Man, this lens is crap.” On the other hand, I just don’t have the money to spend thousands on a lens, either.

3dees

I go by what actual owners say and not DxOmark. I'm not a pixel peeper or a pro. I know when I have a good lens or not. I like the lens and that's all that counts. nuff said.