What Superzoom should I get for my D7100? (Page 2): 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...

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.

purple haze

I am very happy with my Nikon 18x300mm on my D7000, despite its mixed reviews.
I have been using the lens for two years.

Allan Cavalcanti Loc: Rio de Janeiro

Well, I started photo shooting with a D7100 an a 18-200 mm for everything. In the meantime I purchased a 35mm f/1.8, a 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6, a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. So far, results have been very good to my needs.

BUT... (there is always a BUT).... I´ve just purchased a D750 with 24-120 mm f/4 and a 35-70 mm f/2.8 D.
Then I could see how much further I can go about image quality and flexibility with low light!

D7100 is not bad at all. It is a great camera, but lenses are at the heart of that extra reach in image quality. The hardware can limit your needs, as long as your needs grow over the time. That´s the way I feel it.

So, the rationale behind my next purchases is "buy the best lens I can afford". It is still not a GAS disease.
So, today I tend to buy faster and sharper lenses to get the best of my camera body. There is nothing wrong buying mid-performance gear but once you get excellent results with a better tool it is hard to step back.

I will test my FX lenses in my DX 7100 body (which I still keep) to see how the crop effect affects image quality. However, I am 110% satisfied buying better lenses.

Regarding 18-200 or 18-300 mm for D7100: 18-200 mm was my lens of choice 85% of the time. I understand its image quality compromises being such a long range zoom. All reviews say that both lenses give up many technical aspects to fulfill the zoom range functionality. Being such a flexible lens made me a bit lazy as I just need to turn zoom ring. But I do not believe these 2 lenses will give much better result than the Tamron you have. Focusing may be a bit faster but as for image quality I think they all fall in the medium performance lenses. If you are ok with it, then it may work for you.

bthomas42 Loc: North Ridgeville Ohio

On my D7100 I use either the Nikon55-300 of Tamron 200-500 depending on the range I expect my subject to be at mostly wildlife and birds

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

We describe our shooting in a very similar manner. I've been using the Nikon d7100 for three years now with a Tamron 16-300 almost all the time and have been very happy with the results. (The one real disadvantage is low light but it still works.)

After reading the reviews I'm considering renting the Tamron 18-400 to see if the extra reach or possible better IQ would make it worth moving up. I'm going to Africa again next year for safari and am hoping the extra reach of the 18-400 will be an advantage. I too like to travel light and I only carry a Nikon 50mm 1.4 for low light situations--it will fit in a small dry bag and into any day or shoulder pack I may carry. The slightly less wide angle doesn't bother me because, like you, I like to shoot landscape features more than panorama.

Based on what you said I'd consider giving the 18-400 a try.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Silverback wrote:

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...

First, I understand the deficiencies of a superzoo... (show quote)

There are no superzooms for DSLR's, nobody makes stuff like that. (if something like that existed, you wouldn't be able to afford it)!

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

speters wrote:

There are no superzooms for DSLR's, nobody makes stuff like that. (if something like that existed, you wouldn't be able to afford it)!

How do you define "superzoom"? I.e., what range of focal lengths and speed do you consider the lower and upper limits of that category of lenses?

3dees

I have the Tamron 16-300 with my D7200 for my walk around lens and a Sigma 100-400 for more reach happy with both.
.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

jccash wrote:

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 itâs a nice lens pretty shirt not to heavy here is a image using it

The 200-500 is not a superzoom. It's a long focal length narrow range zoom. A superzoom has a large focal range, roughly more than 10 x.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

I couldn't help but notice that of the people who said they liked their "superzooms" none of them mentioned owning high (or even medium-high) end telephoto lenses, the ones that take really sharp pictures at focal lengths over 200mm. I wonder why that is.

Jim Bob

Silverback wrote:

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...

First, I understand the deficiencies of a superzoo... (show quote)

The 18-140 is better than any of the lenses you list under consideration. I’m only referring to image quality.

Silverback

david vt wrote:

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

I do? Which one?

As far as I can tell I want the size and weight of the Nikon but am having a hard time giving up (maybe more accurately, would really use) the 400mm and weather sealing of the Tamron. It doesn't help that I would argue that most of the pics that I screw up are motion blur and that the Tamron is longer, heavier and the VC is only rated good for 2.5 stops vs Nikon's 4 stops. The Tamron would only be better when shooting wildlife, the Nikon would be better most the rest of the time I use the camera, and I'm not sure either would be better with a more dedicated lens.

Right now I feel like my choice is a more practical lens and just figure I will miss some shots with it not having the focal length (nikon) vs a lens that in theory should capture everything the other will and more but I won't be as happy to carry around and will more likely show off my errors (Tamron).

All that said, i wished I had the Tamron 18-400 last night trying to get a pic of the full moon last night, had to do a lot of cropping to see any detail with the 18-270:

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Silverback wrote:

I do? Which one? br br As far as I can tell I wa... (show quote)

The G2's VC is 4.5 stops at 78 oz, Nikon 80oz, not much different.

Silverback

Bultaco wrote:

The G2's VC is 4.5 stops at 78 oz, Nikon 80oz, not much different.

G2? Wazdat? Based on those weights I'm guessing lenses way outside my budget and skill level?

Silverback

Well, considering how fast these things are flying off the shelves (numerous stories about people that are now waiting till January to get one and places that I was looking running out of stock in the last day) and the sample pictures + it will do everything I want it to = I pulled the trigger. I'll supposedly have it in my mitts by Friday.

:-)