fishgroder

The Tamron 18-400 covers it all and is light enough to carry all day

wetreed

I agree

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

While convenient, it's got too many compromises for me. I don't like any zoom over a 4X... Preferably not over 3x

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

That's what most people should want in a lens to cover most situations.

Haydon

Totally agree with you Scott. I'm not willing to compromise on IQ.

As to my favorite, I'd have to say it's split on my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It you can't shoot it with a 135L, it's not worth capturing ...

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍👍

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Trolling? I'll bite because I'm kind of bored tonight.

Have a Tamron 18-400mm f3.5-6.3 attached to a D500. I am getting very good results with it after tuning. I am very happy with the versatility, VR, light weight, zoom lock at 18mm, the price, and the sharpness. I am not so happy with the AF which can get confused and hunt, no manual focus override (in fact the focus ring turns when AF is active), no distance window, its not particularly fast, the zoom ring is not smooth throughout the range (kind of stiff around 100mm). It is a good walking around lens, much better, IMHO, than the Nikon 18-140mm Kit lens I have. It is a great lens for family vacations where family is more important than photography. When I take it, I usually put a 50mm f1.4 in my pocket for low light situations. I can carry this combo all day and can take landscapes, portraits, and even reach out for wildlife and birds.

Now, when I really want the best results my camera can give me I'll pack a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5, Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, a 1.4x teleconverter, and either a 50mm f1.4 or an 85mm f1.8 depending. The picture below was taken with a Nikon D7200, Tamron 18-400mm f3.5-6.3, ISO 360, 1/640 sec, f6.3, at 400mm (600mm 35mm equivalent), handheld. I think it shows sharpness and a nice soft background.

The difference is whether I am serious about taking the best photographs I can vs wanting to capture some memories for something like a family outing.

(Download)

Haydon

Your image above illustrates that sharpness is subjective to the photographer. Everyone has different standards.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Totally agree. I posted the image to give someone an idea of what they can expect from the lens. If its sharp enough for you, you might want to look at the lens. If not, you might want to pass it up. It would be much sharper if taken it with a Nikon 400mm f2.8, which I can't afford at $11,000.

But to be quantitative, this is from the PCmag.com review: "At 18mm f/3.5, the lens delivers strong sharpness from edge to edge. It scores 2,335 lines on Imatest's center-weighted evaluation score, but performance is very good from center (2,423 lines) to edge (2,235 lines). Stopping down to f/5.6 delivers a modest resolution bump (2,457 lines), and the lens delivers excellent results at f/8 (2,862 lines) and f/11 (2,846 lines). We see a slight drop at f/16 (2,389 lines), and a huge one at f/22 (1,492 lines). Diffraction is at fault here—the opening of the iris is so mall at f/22 that light scatters and harms image quality significantly. This is true at every tested focal length. ...[article goes through all the zoom factors]... At the 400mm position the chromatic aberration at the periphery of the frame is more visible. And the center resolution takes a couple steps back too. At f/6.3 the lens shows soft results on average, 1,627 lines, with edges that are just 1,256 lines. There's a good jump in the center at f/8, which brings the average up to 2,009 lines, but edges are weak (1,464 lines). Again, depth of field will hide soft edges in many, but not all, photos."

Here's another, just for reference: D7200 and Tamron 18-400mm f3.5-6.3, ISO 800, 1/500 sec, f/6.3, 400mm (600mm 35mm equivalent), handheld.

(Download)

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Great lens use one with my D500. I also have and like my Nikon 200-500 Lens.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I have to say my Nikon 300mm f/2.8.

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

LIGHT ENOUGH. I think not. I have handled that lens and it is NOT light enough to carry around all day (it is heavy and awkward to carry around with. I will stay with my 18-200, which is MUCH lighter and can be carried around all day.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I love my Nikon 300mm f2.8 and my 200-400mm f4, however I purchased the Nikon 300mm f4 PF and the 500mm f5.6 PF and as far as hand holding these lenses give supper IQ and except for loss of aperture are ever bit as good as the exotics.