Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I am currently in a crux, trying to decide whether to sell all my Nikon gear and go M4/3 or A6000, or simply get a new lens for the D7200. It seems that camera gear isn’t selling well up here on CL, and I hate to do a trade in on another camera, as I’ll really take a hit, moneywise if I do that. For choice of lens for the D7200, I’m looking at either the Tamron 13-300 macro zoom, or the Tamron 18-400, which is not billed by Tamron as “macro.” I’ve Googled some reviews and looked at specs. The 18-400 is .39 lb. heavier than the 16-300, since weight is always a concern. Neither one seems heavy compared to the Nikon equivalents. My question for those of you who have either or both of these lenses is, after this background info is, which lens is the overall better performer? There’s a difference in price, but is the 18-400 enough better than the 16-300 to justify the additional approximately $200.00? Or are they both about the same, performance-wise, and the question becomes one of 300 vs. 400mm focal length. I’d appreciate some input here before I decide which way to go. Thanks.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Don't sell anything until you are very happy with your new gear. I thought I'd switch to Sony NEX a few years ago. After using the cameras and lenses for a while, I sold all of that and went back to my Nikon DSLRs. I have a very nice A6000, but I'd never give up my Nikons

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

The D7200 is a fine camera. I have the 18-400 with my D7500 and love the combination. It should be close to the same with yours. One of the things I read when I was shopping fo the lens was that with the zoom, there's not a big need for a macro. I believe you can get as close as 11 inches and it will focus though I haven't really experimented. As I've said before, the lens is a bit bulky, but for what it does, it's really not that bad. Going 13-300 Macro vs 18-400 depends on your needs. I know nothing of the 13-300, but I can confidently say the 18-400 is an excellent lens for me as a hobbyist/amateur. I like having that extra reach it offers, though there'as nothing earth shattering with that extra 100mm of reach... I also like the quality pictures it takes..

I like the 18-400 because the controls on it are well set up. The only thing it seems to lack are the markings for depth of field shots on the lens, but it does work well in that arena. The focus is fast and quiet and for a 400, it compacts nicely. I'm 64 so weight is also a concern for me. I've toted a Sigma 150-500 around on the camera and by a point of perspective, this makes the Tamron lightweight by comparison.

I hope this helps...

willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

I had the Tamron 16-300 and it really served me well. Did found that at 300mm in auto focus it seemed a bit soft. So I just backed off a bit at the 300mm. Recently, I purchase the Tamron 18-400. Sold the 16-300. A bit heavier, but I like the reach of the 400mm(about 640 equivalent in full frame) . Also found it to be faster in auto focusing and quieter. I have the Canon 80d. Used it on my recent trip to China and I couldn't be happier. If you think you'll take a hit money wise, stick with your Nikon D7200 otherwise it means spending money on a whole new system. Personally, I think you'll like the new Tamron 18-400 BTW the 16-300 is not macro as it doesn't give a 1:1 ratio in macro setting. Close up photography. Whatever you decide, good luck.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Neither of those lenses is a high end IQ lens, they are good to very good and fit the "walk around" lens idea. I would use one if I had to but not by first or second choice since I am into birds, bugs and macro (the "macro" in the 16-300 name just means it focuses closer than others of the type, not that it is a macro lens) and they just don't have the IQ I look for in my lenses. I wish I could afford the ultra high end, but I can't. My "walk around" lens is either my 24-105L or my 100-400L mk2 when I need more reach. Not the light "walk around" many are content with. For that purpose I will go with my bridge camera, knowing I am not getting the high IQ shots I go for with my DSLR bodies.

That said, they are both very good examples of their type. Just so long as you don't expect extreme IQ from them. And the
18-400 is newer technology and has more reach, therefore more versatility as a walk around.

whwiden

Consider whether the 16mm on the wide end is more important than the extra reach. Photographing buildings in a city the wider lens might serve you better.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Great feedback so far. And what I’m getting is that the 16-300 is a decent lens but the 18-400 is better, and looks to be worth the extra money spent. I’d hate to buy the 16-300 only to discover that it’s not that great at the 300 end. And I do realize that the “macro” moniker really means close focusing and real macro. For that I’d have to get a prime macro lens. I certainly appreciate the good info. And yes, Jerry, I wouldn’t get rid of my other gear before deciding whether I liked the Tamron enough to do so. I also realize that this lens is probably not optically as good as OEM glass, but for my purposes, I think it would work for me.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Dxomark has tested the Tamron 16-300 on a Nikon D7100. I presume the results
would be similar on a D7200. They gave it a score of 14 (more or less out of 50).
They have not yet tested the 18-400.

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

This is the portion of their test on sharpness.
As you can see it is HORRIBLE!

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron/Tamron-16-300mm-F35-63-Di-II-VC-PZD-MACRO-Model-B016-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100---Measurements__865

leftj Loc: Texas

I had the 16-300mm and now have the 18-400mm. Although the 18-400 is not billed as a Macro it does just as well at Macro as the 16-300. The sharpness of the 18-400mm is noticeably better than the 16-300mm.

3dees

I have the Tamron 16-300 on my D7200 for my walk around lens and I love it. for more reach I just took delivery of a sigma 100-400.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I sometimes wonder just how meaningful some of these lens evaluations are in the real world of photography. I mean, do these figures accurately reflect how a lens will perform or is it more relevant for the nitpicky? Will the average photographer see just how “bad” this lens is, per the dxomark data, or will images taken with this lens look bad only under heavy scrutiny? I suspect if one takes a magnifying glass to an image, it will likely show some iffy areas, but would just looking at an image, say on the computer monitor or an 8x10 print show a nice, clear sharp picture? I have to wonder, as it seems an awful lot of folks here are saying they really like this Tamron 18-400 lens. But if it’s truly that mediocre, my other clear choice would be the Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3, for nearly the same price.

leftj Loc: Texas

DXOMark has pretty much been shown to be virtually worthless.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Yeah, I’ve wondered just how accurate or meaningful their info is. Perhaps one could say that the results of their test says that a certain lens is as good as, better than or not as good as the OEM lens with the same parameters. But just how much better or worse than may be up to the perception of the user. As they say, “YMMV.” As an aside, Ken Rockwell doesn’t think much of the Tamron 18-400, but he prefaced his review by saying that he isn’t a particular fan of Tamron lenses in general.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

"DXOMark has pretty much been shown to be virtually worthless."

By who?

leftj Loc: Texas

Research it yourself but keep an open mind. Don't just try to find something that supports what you want to believe.