Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens Focus Issues

[Bikerbrent_RIP]

Good luck with Dorian and stay safe. Camera issues are minor by comparison.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Thanks for the amazing help and information, learning a lot. We are a little distracted right now as we're about to be able to get some first hand pictures of Hurricane Dorian kicking our butts here in central Florida. Getting the focus to work correctly isn't the top priority right now. Hopefully this passes and I can get back to more fun stuff again.

Hope all goes well, take care

 

[Marilynne]

Thanks for the amazing help and information, learning a lot. We are a little distracted right now as we're about to be able to get some first hand pictures of Hurricane Dorian kicking our butts here in central Florida. Getting the focus to work correctly isn't the top priority right now. Hopefully this passes and I can get back to more fun stuff again.

We're gonna get hit first on the east coast. Stay safe.

 

[infinitempg]

Thanks for the kind words and latest tracks look like Florida will be spared from a direct landfall. @Marilynne good luck on the east coast, hope you don't get much. Looks to be headed to the Carolinas. Looking back on this lens issue I am a total total newbie now. Did not know about APS-C lenses as I did not know there were different lenses for full frame sensor cameras. Geeze, hit-head-keyboard.... :O(

So, rather than debugging this and ending up with a lens that doesn't take advantage of the full frame sensor, what would be a good zoom lens for the D-750 that would have good range but not be killer expensive???

Thanks

 

[infinitempg]

Looking at dumping the Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens and snagging a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED. Giving up 100mm at the top but hopefully this would be as satisfying a lens as my 105. Any thoughts on this or recommendations?

 

[Texas]

That 18-300 is still a DX (APS-C) lens.

The 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 is a decent lens for full-frame, lots of reviews for it on the google as well as lots of sample pictures. Personally, I think it is priced a little high, but there is not much else out there with a similar range.

I really like my 24-120 f/4 Nikon lens on my D750 but its not a super zoom by any measure.

Here's an interesting review of a couple of 28-300's: https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/nikon-28-300mm-vs-tamron-28-300mm-comparison/

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Looking at dumping the Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens and snagging a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED. Giving up 100mm at the top but hopefully this would be as satisfying a lens as my 105. Any thoughts on this or recommendations?

My best advice to you would be to keep your expectations in check. The 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED is a fantastic prime lens, a demonstration of Nikon's long and impressive history of producing microscopic and other laboratory quality lenses. In short: When it comes to Macro/Micro lenses, Nikon plays hard-ball.

My point here being using this lens as a basis of comparison against zoom lenses with enormous focal ranges, such as 18-300 or 400mm will probably prove disappointing. Most things photographic are an exercise in trade-offs: what you get with a lens that goes from wide-angle to super-zoom is versatility. What you give up in exchange for that degree of versatility will depend on the specific lens, but having to sacrifice a certain amount of overall image quality, compared to your 105mm, is not something that should surprise you. Other factors photographers deal with when it comes to choosing our lenses are things such as size/weight, constant aperture vs fixed and of course, cost. I feel confident every photographer would love an 11-600mm, optically stabilized, f/1.4 that's tack sharp across the focal range, weighs less than a pound and costs $300; but until that happens we'll have to make some difficult choices.

Just off the top of my head, and bearing my previous comments in mind, you might want to consider either the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR ($1,200) or the new Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD ($800) for your D750. The 24-120mm seems to be a "Love it or Hate it" sort of experience. I don't own one but I've used one on a few occasions and I was generally impressed. The new-ish Tamron 35-150mm has received rave reviews but again, comparing it to your 105mm is probably not a good idea. Neither of these lenses cover enormous focal ranges but either lens, I think, would serve you well as a general-purpose, walk-about lens.

Edit: As a parting thought I'll pass along how important I personally feel it is to calibrate the auto-focus of ANY lens, Nikon or third-party, prime or zoom, to the camera body it will be used on. There's not a single lens I own that hasn't been tested and/or tweaked in this regard. It's sometimes been an uphill battle to get a lens to do what it needs to do but the effort, in my experience, has always paid off. Always.

 

[hark]

My best advice to you would be to keep your expectations in check. The 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED is a fantastic prime lens, a demonstration of Nikon's long and impressive history of producing microscopic and other laboratory quality lenses. In short: When it comes to Macro/Micro lenses, Nikon plays hard-ball.

My point here being using this lens as a basis of comparison for zoom lenses with enormous focal ranges, such as 18-300 or 400mm will, most likely, prove to be an exercise in disappointment. Most things photographic are an exercise in trade-offs: what you get with a lens that goes from wide-angle to super-zoom is versatility. What you give up in exchange for that degree of versatility will depend on the specific lens, but having to sacrifice a certain amount of overall image quality, compared to your 105mm, is not something that should surprise you.

Just off the top of my head, and bearing my previous comments in mind, you might want to consider either the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR ($1,200) or the new Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD ($800) for your D750.

I agree with Fish's thoughts. Generally prime lenses are sharper than zooms - especially when it comes to a Nikon macro prime such as the 105mm. I have the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR that I used for several years. It is a very good lens but was recently discontinued. I still have mine but replaced it with the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR which is incredible.

I also own the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR lens. Previous to buying this fantastic lens, I used to use a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lens (no vibration reduction with my lens though). My Sigma is very sharp - MUCH sharper than the samples I've seen online - but I compared 3 lenses and chose the sharpest one. That said, the Nikon really surprised me! Since it offers VR and has a longer reach than my Sigma, it stays on my D750.

 

[Chris@sabor]

Here's another option...

The 70-200 F2.8 from Nikon, Sigma and Tamron are all exceptional lenses. The Tamron is very, very sharp and has great stabilization and it's only $1200. That's about half of the cost of the Nikon version.

For more reach, you could add an extender, either 1.4x, giving you 280mm at F4 or a 2.0x, giving you 400mm at F5.6. You would lose a lot on the wide end but the super zooms are aimed at consumers looking for one lens, probably vacation type photography, not pixel peepers or enthusiast level photographers and very few pro or working photographers would even consider them.

 

[infinitempg]

Many thanks for the input and although I know I sacrifice on the reach I really need to do more than 120 and even 200. I have been using a Fuji HS50EXR and the zoom on that is 24-1000 (42x) so the shorter I go the sadder I am. I did want to go full frame but still wanted some of the super zoom. I read reviews and decided on the AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR as my walk around lens. I absolutely love my AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED and will rely on that for macro work. I don't expect the 28-300 to stand up to that level but even shooting today I wished I had the zoom. Once that arrives I'll see how that goes but I'm already confident that it will run circles around the Tamron I have (which will be for sale soon).

On a follow up note, suggestions for lens filters? I never use a lens without a filter, I'm paranoid like that. Any recommendations? The new lens I believe is 77mm.

Thanks again for all your help and for all your kind thoughts to help us push Hurricane Dorian into the Atlantic.

 

[infinitempg]

Okay, got my AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR a day early but hardly any daylight left to play with but already liking this much better than the Tamron.

​

And just the moon with a little contrast tweak:

​

Yeah, happy so far with the new glass.