MDI Mainer

I have used the older 18-270 extensively on my Sony SLTs, and find them sharp, versatile, and quick to focus.

Strangely, the Tamron website now lists the 18-270 as available in Canon and Nikon mounts only, whereas the 16-300 includes the Sony A mount, so at least for Sony DSLR and SLT users the 16-300 is in fact the successor to the 18-270. But there are still some Sony 18-270s available at Amazon, and they cost about half as much as the 16-300.

miked46 Loc: Winter Springs, Florida

I took mine to Italy last year, and it never came off my 70D. it is very good. I like 16mm wide

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I have 16 300 very nice versitile lens can be a little soft especially at the 300 end but for the price I felt it did a great job

Flattop57 Loc: Draper Utah

I have the 16-300 on my D5. Overall it does a good job but when enlarging any images beyond a computer screen size the sharpness andclarity are not there, seems a little out of focus.
For family photos that are not going to be greatly enlarged I think it’s a great lense.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

The Tamron 16-300mm lens is the only lens I use while traveling because it is light-weight, wide to tele range, and very sharp.

Flattop57 Loc: Draper Utah

I have the 16-300 on my D5. Overall it does a good job but when enlarging any images beyond a computer screen size the sharpness andclarity are not there, seems a little out of focus.
For family photos that are not going to be greatly enlarged I think it’s a great lense.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

FWIW, the objective testing I saw done by one of the British magazines showed the Sigma version to be "better" or, the best of the genre. - I have the magazine but would have to dig it out.....

lamontcranston

That may possibly be due to the photographer and not to the lens. I have the Tamron 18-270 and my daughter-in-law uses the Tamron 16-300 with excellent results. No problems with blurriness or image quality at all. In fact, those lenses are as good or better than some of the Nikon and Sony zooms that I have.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I bought the Tamron 16-300 when it came out to replace my much older Tamron 28-300. I have been immensely satisfied with it, as I was with the 28-300. The 28-300 was my daily walkaround lens, and the 16-300 has done an extraordinary job taking its place since I have a an extra 12mm at the small end. My only problem with them is that I only go out for 6 hours a day, usually in the morning, and only take an average of 500 pictures each day--landscapes, fauna (Zoo, Safari Park, SeaWorld, Discovery Center, beaches, mountains, National Wildlife Refuge, National Grasslands), flora (Zoo, Safari Park, botanical gardens), people (beaches and malls), trains, cars. Absolutely no problems at any focal point.

lamontcranston

"16-300 Tamron - is this a versatile lens, or - a waste of money?"

It is a VERY versatile lens. My daughter-in-law recently returned from a month-long photo safari in Africa. She used a Tamron 16-300 on her Nikon and returned with thousands of beautiful images. That was the only lens she used on that trip. When she bought it a couple of years ago, she gave me her Tamron 18-270 to use on my Nikon. It too has been an excellent lens. Image quality is every bit as good or better than that obtained with my other Nikon and Sony zooms. If I were looking for a high quality, relatively compact zoom lens I would not hesitate to get either lens.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Chris, I have Sony SLTs and understand your query. I added Nikon to my camera case because of the diminishing availability of new lenses for A-mount. The 18-400 is a want, but will probably be for the Nikons, since no A-mount yet (come on Tamron, you can do it) and I will pick up a 16-300 first time I see one reasonable in A-mount (I've missed several, but I keep looking). On the Sony forums and (try this site if you don't already know about it) DYXUM.com, it is a treasure trove of user reviews on all lenses Sony A & E mount, most all vendors are covered, and it covers a huge age range too, tech spec, etc. The 16-300 gets high rating from the user community.

I have 4 Tamron's in A-mount; two older 28-200 and 28-300, and both do a good job, also slightly newer, an A03 and A06 (28-200 & 28-300, and they do great work too. I am looking for one with wider view and VC, so the 16-300 and 18-270 are on the list, or an older 18-300 with VC. One will come along, I just have to have patience. I do have the 18-270 VC for my Nikons and it does a great job all around (and I got that one "damaged" - jammed zoom for $40 delivered) Pulled off the Zoom rubber, retrieved the Adjust Screw/bushing from inside, re-attached with THREADLOCK, put the rubber on and it works just like new, and no zoom creep!! It is a good lens, would be fine on a Sony.

The 16-300 - I hope I beat you to the first good deal on one that comes along!! LOL Good luck in the quest.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

With regard to the mentions of clarity/blurriness, not-so-sharp, I've been quite pleased with my little Tamron Zoom collection, and I do have a few!! Only one that I bought had a clarity issue, and I think it had hit the ground, or suffered some sort of impact, probably knocked the focus stack out a bit, I disassembled it and use the screws and such for other projects. You can occasionally get a bad copy of any lens, I have Nikon 70-300 that will be tore down someday when I feel the need, never been sharp, always blurry.

Also have the Sigma 18-250 DC Macro HSM OS that is quite good, some say it is better than the Tamron 18-270, but I like the Tamron better. That said, they are both fine lenses for that all-in-one approach, I think most would be happy with either.

How do the Tamron and Sigma lenses stack up against my Nikon AF-S/AF-P zooms, very favorably, sharp as my Nikon AF Zooms, not quite, but close.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

jquote=Chris T]This one's been on the back burner, for me, for quite some time. Since it's available in Sony a-mount, and the newer Tamron 18-400 is only available in Canon and Nikon mounts, I've been considering it. But, both the reviews, and comments here, regarding this lens, have been a mixed bag. Sony lenses are quite pricey, and thus - apart from those I already have (18-55 SAM II, 16-105 DT, 18-250 DT) chances are, I won't be getting anymore (apart from a macro or two) but this is one Third Party lens, I keep coming back to, again and again. It's wide enough for most applications where one needs a Wider Length, but only if that 16mm REALLY IS 16mm. But, I suspect it really isn't. So, I am interested to hear from those who have it, use it, and have figured out what it really IS, on the wide end. Also, I'd like to hear your reflections about its performance on the long end, too. Of course, I am considering it for my Sony SLTs, but if you have it on a Nikon or on a Canon - I'd also like to hear your reflections. Best money you ever spent on a lens, or no?[/quote]
As you are probably aware Chris, all superzoom lenses have image quality compromises attached to them. The Tamron 16-300 is one of them. The advantages of the 16-300 are the wider than average 16mm on the wide end and the relatively light weight for a lens with this focal range. Various distortions are also reasonably well controlled compared to most other lenses of this type. However the lens is not super sharp, especially at 300mm. Its not that its a terrible lens, its just not a great one. It falls far short in IQ compared to its bigger and heavier sibling the Tamron 18-400. I've played with the 16-300 and didn't care for it. Its IQ was not much better than the Tamron 18-270 PZD which is a so-so lens. I own the Tamron 18-400 which I use only occasionally. Even if it was available with a Sony mount you wouldn't want it because of its size and weight.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Thanks for that info, Mainer … I do have the 18-270 (one fine lens!) but only in EOS mount. The regular lens on my a77 (now, a77 II) is the 16-105 DT - which has gotten me used to having 16mm at my beck and call … so, I really want to keep that ability, when I buy new glass for the Sony SLTs, and this is just about the only way I can do it - other than the 16-50 DT - which means cutting 55mm off my length!!! But, still - that does seem to be a cost-efficient way to go. Thanks for the tip, Mainer ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, but, Mark - the 18-400 is only available in Nikon and EOS mounts, whilst the 16-300 is also available in Sony a-mount. I've been looking for something to replace the 18-250 DT (which won't cut it, for me) and apart from Sony's own 16-50 DT (too short) - this is the only coal left glowing - for those cameras.

I know it's not perfect, but as OleMikey just pointed out - what lens is?