Silverback

First, I understand the deficiencies of a superzoom, I also rarely carry more than one lens and I find that probably close to 90% of the pics I take with any of my cameras are with my old 18-270mm Tamron, not even the slightly smaller/lighter/newer version of that lens but one of the older ones.

I'm also realizing that I have a lot of overlap in lenses and would like to sell 1-3 of them and get something nicer (mostly for my D7100), what I have now:
- Tamron 18-270, this sees by far the most use
- Nikon 18-140, kit lens that I got with the D7100. I rarely use it because it just has a shorter range than the Tamron, is only slightly smaller and doesn't seem to result in as pleasing a picture, I'm not really sure why. Lately, I've been using it a little bit more mostly because it's a little lighter
- Sigma 24-105mm Art. This is a beautiful lens that takes beautiful pictures. It's also massively heavy (almost 2lbs) and between being heavy and being a subset of the range both previous lenses I rarely use it unless I know I'm not going to be carrying it around much and am doing something I know it will be superior for.
- I also have 2 sets of the typical kit 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, as well as a 35mm f/1.8 that I don't really consider overlapping with the zooms


What do I take pictures of:
- typical kids/family/life stuff (we all do, right?), this could be done with anything and I change it up, but I like using the Tamron as a "sniper lens" and not have to jocky with other parents/family for the good positions to take pics
- wildlife, mostly from a kayak or canoe, but sometimes walking/hiking. This I will take all the mm I can get and all the sharpness and accuracy I can get out there.
- landscape/architecture. Surprisingly not a lot of wide angle stuff like typical, I like details which I often can't get right up to. I like the Tamron here also
- I've recently played with a lot of moon pics and some of the recent solar eclipse. I got some OK pics but I would have loved more sharpness and less chromatic aberration


What have I been considering:
- Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3- This was and still might be my top contender. I like the size/weight (similar to the Tamron) but I it should have better IQ, especially >200mm
- That got me looking at the Tamron 16-300mm. I love my old Tamron, and this one is supposed to be better in every way. The extra wide angle will likely mean more than the extra 30mm at the big end. The reviews mentioning the lack of sharpness and chromatic aberration especially >200mm scare me some. The weather sealing is nice for use on the water
- All the "photographers" that hate superzooms seem to like the nikon 18-300 f3.5-5.6 better than the newer nikon 18-300. The extra length/weight, 50% more than my old tamron which is slightly more than the smaller nikon and the 16-300 and 2/3 the way to the Sigma Art that I rarely use because it's heavy and has a short range
- Tamron 18-400mm. Again, I like my old tamron, an extra 130mm (almost 200mm in 35mm eq) over my current Tamron would really mean something for a lot of the pictures that I take. It's 120g lighter and about the same size as the bigger nikon, but that's still about 150g heavier than my old tamron and the Nikon I was originally sold on. Again, being weather sealed is nice


So what would you do? Anything else I would consider? The last 2 will likely run me a little more than I had planned...

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

My most-used lens is Nikon 80-400mm.

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

I too have a Tamron 18-270 and it was my most used lens . . . I thought a little more reach would be nice, so I went with the Tamron 18-400 . . . It is now the lense I use 95% of the time . . .

water falls Loc: Green Bay,Wi

I had a 18-300mm Nikon on my d7100 which I loved. I just downed loaded some pictures taken in Arizona with that
Camera and lens.

Silverback

Is your 18-270 the PZD or the older, larger/heavier one?

How do you feel about the size/weight penalty going to the 18-400? Right now it's my top contender, the only thing that is keeping me from pulling the trigger is that I'm worried about it being bigger/heavier then the biggest/heaviest lens I have now that I'm happy to carry around (it's still almost 10mm around smaller and 200g lighter than the Sigma Art lense that I think is just too heavy/bulky) and that I can't seem to find as good a deal on it as some of the others.

Right now second place is the Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3, better IQ than my old Tamron in a slightly smaller package and there are some good deals out there.

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

My 18-270 is the PZD . . . Its on my D5500 and makes for a very light and compact package.

Although a larger outfit, (both camera and lens), I generally don't have a problem with the 18-400's size and weight on my D500, but I wouldn't want to go any bigger. I often have a monopod for pics of grandkids Dance competitions and Tae Kwon Do tournaments. And carry a tripod if I'm going up in the mountains. For walks around the neighborhood, I just use a neck strap.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 is a great all around walking lens; wide angle for landscapes, 300 when you want to get closer.

Silverback

So for you the size/weight change was almost 2x what it will be for me, and I'm pretty used to shooting my old tamron floating in a canoe/kayak or even a moving vehicle at times.

Would you still pick it if you knew you were going to be shooting handheld 98% of the time? With my kids, I really don't like being "that guy" that sets up a tripod in the middle of the school auditorium getting in people's way, so I rarely use one except when I'm setting up something special with low light or something similar. I guess that I might use it more if I had a better tripod.

Silverback

At this point, based on my previous experience with lenses in this size range (it looks like it's virtually identical to my nikon 18-140 with the lense not extended), I'm sure that I'd be happy with it size and weight wise, it is reviewed as being sharper everywhere than my existing tamron and my nikon 18-140 with less chromatic aberration. Put all that together I'm positive that I'd be happy with that Nikon 18-300.

For me the question now is if I'd be happier with the Tamron 18-400, which from the quality of the pictures I'm seeing posted I'd be thrilled with, it's just a question if I would find it too bulky for just a carry around lens (which might be a bit of a funny thing if you saw me, I'm 6'4" and 250#, you hand me most things or put me next to most things and they look tiny)

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

I do shoot handheld when on walkabout. I don't see the size and weight as much of a negative, but wouldn't go with anything larger for hand holding. I'm not the tripod guy in the gym, but sometimes: the monopod guy, especially when doing video. The tripod comes out when in the mountains doing wildlife or landscape.

david vt Loc: Vermont

Hi. You seem to know what lens you want, just a bit hesitant to make the leap.

There is a solution - rent one for a few days or a week and convince yourself. The cost of the rental is worth the piece of mind IMHO

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

Nikon 200-500 f5.6, best for the price on the market today.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I too have a D7100 shooting wildlife with either a 18-300 3.5-5.6 or the Tamron 150-600 G2, it's weather sealed and lighter than the Nikon 200-500.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I use the 200-500 and love it try to go out weekly in Florida to one of our Wetlands for birding I also have the Tamron 18-400 sold my Nikon 18-200 for the Tammy it’s a nice lens pretty shirt not to heavy here is a image using it

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

You seem to be pretty sure that the Nikon 18-300 will be the lens you need. I have never used one so I cannot make any comments on it except that I have seen good quality in the files I have seen shot with it.
I do not have any experience with the Tamron 18-400 but in a recent Tamron workshop here in Miami the pictures shown were very sharp with excellent contrast.