Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Recommend a Super Zoom
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Silverback" data-source="post: 648934" data-attributes="member: 43255"><p>Right now, after writing all that out and thinking about it for a bit I'm down to the smaller Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.5 and the Tamron 18-400:</p><p><a href="http://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-F3.5-6.3G-ED-VR-vs-Tamron-18-400mm-F3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-HLD-Nikon-F-DX" target="_blank">Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm F3.5-6.3G ED VR vs Tamron 18-400mm F3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Detailed Comparison</a></p><p></p><p>Most of the reviews put the IQ of both nikons at better than the Tamron 16-300 (which I would love to choose but not at a loss of IQ) which has pretty much taken the shorter Tamron out of the running even though I would love the 16mm end of it. </p><p></p><p>The larger Nikon (f/3.5-5.6) has been mostly eliminated from the running because of it's size and weight. I could honestly see me getting this lens and keeping my Tamron 18-270mm just to have something smaller/lighter to lug around, and then end up using the Tamron more.</p><p></p><p>That leaves the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 and the Tamron 18-400mm. The way I see it Nikon Pros:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">small/light</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">reviews seem to say best IQ of all the 300mm superzooms with the exception of the bigger Nikon</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">some good deals out there on it</li> </ul><p>Tamron pros:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">400mm... 600mm equivalent... I mean that would change my wildlife stuff</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reviewers, at least those that try to actually use it seem to really like the lens. I've seen some comparisons to a 100-400Sigma regular zoom that I really can't tell the difference at longer lengths</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">sealed, I continually stress about getting dust and water in my lenses</li> </ul><p>Cons:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Long, the longest lens I've seriously considered or have owned</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">heavier then I was hoping to go with, but I don't think 100g heavier is that big a deal. Still much lighter than the Sigma Art that I think is too heavy</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Price, I see no deals on this thing. I think it's too new, no or few used ones out there (maybe good, the people that have them don't want to let go?)</li> </ul><p></p><p>Why can't they make a 10-400mm f/2.8 that's sharp across the range, under 1lb and under $500? ;-)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Silverback, post: 648934, member: 43255"] Right now, after writing all that out and thinking about it for a bit I'm down to the smaller Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.5 and the Tamron 18-400: [url=http://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-F3.5-6.3G-ED-VR-vs-Tamron-18-400mm-F3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-HLD-Nikon-F-DX]Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm F3.5-6.3G ED VR vs Tamron 18-400mm F3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Detailed Comparison[/url] Most of the reviews put the IQ of both nikons at better than the Tamron 16-300 (which I would love to choose but not at a loss of IQ) which has pretty much taken the shorter Tamron out of the running even though I would love the 16mm end of it. The larger Nikon (f/3.5-5.6) has been mostly eliminated from the running because of it's size and weight. I could honestly see me getting this lens and keeping my Tamron 18-270mm just to have something smaller/lighter to lug around, and then end up using the Tamron more. That leaves the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 and the Tamron 18-400mm. The way I see it Nikon Pros: [LIST] [*]small/light [*]reviews seem to say best IQ of all the 300mm superzooms with the exception of the bigger Nikon [*]some good deals out there on it [/LIST] Tamron pros: [LIST] [*]400mm... 600mm equivalent... I mean that would change my wildlife stuff [*]Reviewers, at least those that try to actually use it seem to really like the lens. I've seen some comparisons to a 100-400Sigma regular zoom that I really can't tell the difference at longer lengths [*]sealed, I continually stress about getting dust and water in my lenses [/LIST] Cons: [LIST] [*]Long, the longest lens I've seriously considered or have owned [*]heavier then I was hoping to go with, but I don't think 100g heavier is that big a deal. Still much lighter than the Sigma Art that I think is too heavy [*]Price, I see no deals on this thing. I think it's too new, no or few used ones out there (maybe good, the people that have them don't want to let go?) [/LIST] Why can't they make a 10-400mm f/2.8 that's sharp across the range, under 1lb and under $500? ;-) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Recommend a Super Zoom
Top