Zooman 1

I have had the 16-300, got rid of it. Maybe I had a bad lens, but could not get a sharp image at the wide range. After much thought I bought the 18-400. At first was not too happy with it, but took it on my Africa trip and was quite pleased with the results. I use Canon cameras and the 100-400L, which is much sharper than the Tamron 18-400, but much heavier. I seldom hand hold the 100-400, but got good images with the 18-400 hand held. Did have a few times when it would stop focusing and I would have to shut off the camera and turn it back on to get AF back. Not sure why.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

We all miss things but we just discussed these two lenses earlier this week. I am going to cut and paste my response. I will add that I did buy the 18-400 and have taking about 800 shots on it and am very satisfied for what it will do for me. It still comes down to what you want in your pictures.

I have been using the Tamron 16-300 lens for several years now as my walk-around lens and have been generally happy with it. (I am committed to using one major lens that is light enough to carry all day and to not having to change lenses in the field. If you can handle either of those tasks you may want to consider other options.) Looking toward another African safari trip later this year I've also been exploring the Tamron 18-400 to upgrade my 16-300 as I think that the additional reach will be beneficial to me in Africa. Yesterday I rented the Tamron 18-400 lens for my Nikon d7100 and took it to the San Diego Wild Animal Park which is a great place to take pictures of animals close and at a distance. I shot a little over 300 pictures trying to use the full range of settings and light situations.

I am not completely sold on the 18-400 but do like it enough that I will probably purchase it later today. It did quite well in the 18mm to 150mm range but not quite as good as the 16-300. I found it very good in the middle range 150mm to 300mm with very sharp pictures. Finally, I really liked it when I went over 300mm all the way to 400mm where it was very sharp and noticeably better than the 16-300 lens at its limits. Also, while not quite as clear on macro like shots as the 16-300 the 18-400 at 400mm did a very good job of flowers, insects and other macro like opportunities.

As a qualification, I found the autofocus a bit awkward as my hand kept getting in the way of the spinning cylinder--something I do not experience with my 16-300 but that I suspect will not be an issue once I train myself how to hold this lens. I also thought the manual turning of the telephoto cylinder was a bit stiff compared to the 16-300. Finally, my biggest concern was the fact the lens was slow to focus and set when I had to change subjects, lighting and distances rapidly--like shooting a bird in a tree at distance and then seeing a baby gorilla about 20 feet away suddenly leap up on a tree--I actually missed a couple of those changing condition shots that I believe I would have gotten with the 16-300.

So, this is only one person's real world experience with the lens and I'm not an expert--I'm just learning as well as I can. Overall I believe it will add to my ability to shoot animals in Africa and elsewhere without having to break the bank or carry weight I'm unwilling to carry so I will probably buy it. I will keep my 16-300 and get rid of my Nikon 18-200 which is pretty obsolete if I have these two Tamron lenses. Hope this helps you in your research and consideration.

tims.ak Loc: Butte, Alaska

Hi Joe,
A few months ago I traded my 16-300 for a Canon lens. I travel daily for work and missed the versatility of carrying one lens so bought the 18-400. I really like the lens. The extra upper range is a nice addition. Its light weight and works very well with my Canon 80D. Last week I was in Kotzebue AK area and let a coworker try it. He liked it well enough to buy one for the same purpose. The 18-400 adds better weather sealing, although I never experienced any problem with the 16-300. It also works with Tamron's tap-in console so you can make fine adjustments to match your camera. My wife also has the 18-270, the 18-400 only adds about 1 cm in length when closed. If you like the 18-270 I think you'd find the 18-400 a vast improvement. As mentioned here on many posts, it's always good to try one first. We have a local camera shop with rental available. If there's one close by you could do a comparison.

Andrew Slater

I bought the Tamron 18-400 for use with my D5500 for an Alaska trip last summer. You can’t beat the convenience of using one lense and the image quality is very good.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Agreed. Dollar for dollar I do not believe there is a better bargain than the Nikon 200-500! I love this lens.

janispaushter

Hi Joe, I just purchased the Tamron 16 to 300 and I really like it as my everyday lens. I didn't check into the 400 since I have a Tamron 150 to 600. Whether you purchase your lens from B&H or not, I find that their technicians are excellent in recommending cameras and lenses. Make sure that the 400 is a full frame lens. The lens does not do well in low light. I found that my photos are fuzzy when blown up. In bright light, the photos are terrific. JP

was_a_guru

I have a Nikon D7500 w/18-55mm & 70-300mm lenses (kit purchase from Costco). I decided I wanted a single lens to span those combined ranges for my travel photography so I bought the Tamron 18-400mm after checking a number of reviews.

Last week I went out with all three lenses, mounted my camera on a tripod, aimed it at a target several yards away and with the Tamron took shots at 18, 35, 50, 70, 100, 200, 300 & 400. I then changed to the Nikon 18-55 and took shots at 18, 35, 50. Changed to the Nikon 70-300 and took shots at 70, 100, 200, & 300. Attached pics - Top Tamron 18mm, Middle Tamron 300mm, Bottom Nikon 300mm

Then printed all at 8"x12" (Costco) and compared. I was unable to discern any difference up to 300. At 300 there was a very small amount of degradation but only noticeable with a magnifying glass looking at some small print on the target.

So I'm happy with my purchase.

Piman-jimc

I recently bought a Tamron 18-400 to use with my D7000. This time of year, my main subject matter is indoor high school competitive swimming. I used to use a Nikon 18-200, and 55-300. Each had their limitations. The 18-400 fits this type of shooting perfectly.
Jim

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Pretty sure the 18-400 is a DX lens...i.e. not what you want for your D750.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

They can make the firmware not work with it. With batteries they can install a propriety chip to screw up the camera if battery without one is used.

They did it to me on the D5300 with my Sigma 150-500. Fortunately Sigma responded by a free update to the firmware on my out of warranty lens.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Can you post some results? How fast is the lens under those kind of lights? I just purchased a Tamron 100-400 for my daughter's D7500, but doubt that it would be a good lens for indoor basketball, esp. on a crop sensor camera.

Jericho730 Loc: Houston, TX

I have the Tamron 18-400 and am happy with it. I use it on a Nikon camera.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I have enjoyed the 16 _300 for almost 2 yrs now IQ was acceptable for most situations and improved after I microadjusted the focus with FoCal ,the size also is allowed in more places than my 100_400LII like Miller Park for Brewer's Games

Piman-jimc

For your basketball lighting, I suggest Shutter speed preferred: 1/400th, with auto ASA. Sometimes I use an +.3 exposure over ride as well. The lighting in gymnasiums is similar, if not better lighted than pools.
Keep in mind that the attached photos are snaps, or grab shots to be used in the end of year slide show/video.
Hope this helps.
Jim

~350-400mm


~200mm


~18mm


~300mm