Yet another 'which lens' question

D

DEANO3528

New member
Yeah apologies in advance for another boring lens question. I did have a search and sort of got what I wanted, but as I'm tight, sorry 'budgeting', I want to make sure.

Okay a guy I know bought the Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD, really loves it and gets some really fantastic shots. Question is, is it for me?

I envisage using it mostly for air displays, maybe a little wildlife and as a general 'travel lens' as I've seen it gets called.
However at a similar(-ish) price I can buy a Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD. So it's a little slower but it's got 30mm more up top and there's no substitute for cubes (so to speak).
I had a look at the lens simulator posted up here and to be frank, there's not a lot of difference between 270 and 300, that I can see!
So bearing in mind the use I wish to put it to, and the results I have seen from my acquaintance, does the collective feel the 18-270 would be a good starter, longer range lens over the kit 18-55?

Thank you in advance for any help/guidance.
 
R

robbins.photo

Senior Member
Greetings Deano,

Ok, in general any lens that covers a wide variation in focal lengths generally ends up being "ok" at most of them but not really spectactular at any. It's a bit of a limitation of the design of such a lens. While I've heard some good things about the Tamron 70-300 mm, my recommendation would be to look at the Nikkor 70-300 mm AF-S G VR. It is a little more expensive, but really worth every penny. It is an unbelievably sharp lens, focus is fast and reliable, it truly is a spectacular lens.
 
D

DEANO3528

New member
Hi all and thanks. I think I confused the issue slightly so apologies for that. Basically I have two choices either replace the current kit 18-55 with the Tamron 18-270 so 'one lens for all', or carry two lenses - the kit one plus the 70-300. Thanks to robbins.photo for the advice there, it's noted. NOw off to check the price of the Nikkor :)
 
P

Pretzel

Senior Member
DEANO3528 said:
Sorry to double post: is it this one robbins.photo

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-...&qid=1403639250&sr=8-1&keywords=nikkor+70-300
Click to expand...

Look around for a factory refurbished, too. The one you linked comes out to somewhere around $600.00 U.S. (roughly), and I got one from Cameta, factory refurbished in perfect condition AND a year warranty for... if I remember correctly... around $370.00 U.S. (nearly 40% less) Not sure what options ya have for refurbished on the other side of the pond, but definitely worth a look considering the savings! Make sure it's an authorized factory refurbish, though, as that means it went back to Nikon and was refurbished to factory new specs.

For the record, it's a brilliant lens considering the price. A lot of wildlife shots, etc. in my 365 are examples.
 
Last edited:
R

Rick M

Senior Member
You will get the best IQ with the 18-55/70-300 VC combo. The Tamron 70-300 VC is a better lens that the 18-270 (in my opinion) and the 18-55 is probably better in it's range. Usually, the cost of convenience is IQ and I think that is the case with these choices.
 
C

crycocyon

Senior Member
I agree that getting the 70-300 makes a lot more sense than trying to get one lens that has this super wide range with image quality that will correspondingly suffer. The longer the range the harder it is to correct for aberrations, and also image contrast and resolution goes way down. You would not be getting the most out of your D3200 sensor with a lens like the 18-270, as attractive as that range might be.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
singlerosa said:
I'd take the 18-270 over the 18-55 if those were the only choices.
Click to expand...

Have you used both Jim? My 18-55 is pretty darn sharp. Can the 18-270 match it at those focal lengths, or even come close?
I'm really thinking about this lens after my wife calms down about my latest purchase.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
fotojack said:
Keep your 18-55 and get the 70-300 and you'll be all set. :)
Click to expand...

Yea, but I need a walkaround lens. I already have 4 lenses.
I won't part with the Tokina 11_16 or the 18_55.
I'll part with my 55_200 and my sigma 70_300.

I got the 18_140, the 18_105 and this 18_270 in mind .
The trouble is that if I get any of the first 2 I would still need to keep my sigma 70_300.
If I get the Tamron , then I'll be able to drop at least 2 lenses, and if it's good as my 18_55 in that range, then I can also drop that one as well.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
Yea, but I need a walkaround lens. I already have 4 lenses.
I won't part with the Tokina 11_16 or the 18_55.
I'll part with my 55_200 and my sigma 70_300.

I got the 18_140, the 18_105 and this 18_270 in mind .
The trouble is that if I get any of the first 2 I would still need to keep my sigma 70_300.
If I get the Tamron , then I'll be able to drop at least 2 lenses, and if it's good as my 18_55 in that range, then I can also drop that one as well.
Click to expand...
If it were me, I'd keep the Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 70-300mm. Not sure why you're attached to the 18-55 since it's neither particularly sharp OR particularly fast and its focal length can be duplicated easily. I admit, it's handy but again, if it were me, I'd let it go and replace it with a fast prime like a 35mm f/1.8 or the 50mm equivalent if you prefer.

The 18-140mm will be your daily walkabout lens (gawd I love this lens so very much). Your big gun will be your Sigma 70-300mm, the Tokina will be there to scratch your ultra-wide itch and the 35mm will be your fast, ultra versatile prime, your go-to for indoor family events and such.

....
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
Have you used both Jim? My 18-55 is pretty darn sharp. Can the 18-270 match it at those focal lengths, or even come close?
I'm really thinking about this lens after my wife calms down about my latest purchase.
Click to expand...
I haven't owned either. Closest I've come is an 18-70 and 18-200. Perhaps if I pixel-peeped side by side photos of the same shot, the 18-70 might have had the edge over the 18-200. I liked both lenses for what they were.

If it came down to owning one lens, I'd choose one that could handle all (or most of) the stuff I like to shoot and the only ones that can do that are the super zooms.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
@Mr.Fish. The last guy that attacked my beloved 18-55 now sleeps with the fishes.:pride:

Onward to some serious stuff.
Now I'm leaning towards your suggestion about keeping the Sigma and adding the 18-140.
Don't really need the 35mm, and if I like the 18-140's IQ at the 18-55 range, I canget rid of that one.

So that will leave me with 3 lenses that includes a nice walkaround.
As opposed to 4 lenses with no real walkaround.
 
Top