Recommend a Super Zoom

Which Superzoom?

  • Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 (newer/smaller/lighter one)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 (older/heavier/supposedly better IQ)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tamron 16-300

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tamron 18-400

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • Something else

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • Total voters
    8

Silverback

Senior Member
First, I understand the deficiencies of a superzoom, I also rarely carry more than one lens and I find that probably close to 90% of the pics I take with any of my cameras are with my old 18-270mm Tamron, not even the slightly smaller/lighter/newer version of that lens but one of the older ones.

I'm also realizing that I have a lot of overlap in lenses and would like to sell 1-3 of them and get something nicer (mostly for my D7100), what I have now:
  • Tamron 18-270, this sees by far the most use
  • Nikon 18-140, kit lens that I got with the D7100. I rarely use it because it just has a shorter range than the Tamron, is only slightly smaller and doesn't seem to result in as pleasing a picture, I'm not really sure why. Lately, I've been using it a little bit more mostly because it's a little lighter
  • Sigma 24-105mm Art. This is a beautiful lens that takes beautiful pictures. It's also massively heavy (almost 2lbs) and between being heavy and being a subset of the range both previous lenses I rarely use it unless I know I'm not going to be carrying it around much and am doing something I know it will be superior for.
  • I also have 2 sets of the typical kit 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, as well as a 35mm f/1.8 that I don't really consider overlapping with the zooms

What do I take pictures of:
  • typical kids/family/life stuff, this could be done with anything and I change it up, but I like using the Tamron as a "sniper lens" and not have to jocky with other parents/family for the good positions to take pics
  • wildlife, mostly from a kayak or canoe, but sometimes walking/hiking. This I will take all the mm I can get and all the sharpness and accuracy I can get out there.
  • landscape/architecture. Surprisingly not a lot of wide angle stuff like typical, I like details which I often can't get right up to. I like the Tamron here also
  • I've recently played with a lot of moon pics and some of the recent solar eclipse. I got some OK pics but I would have loved more sharpness and less chromatic aberration

What have I been considering:
  • Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3- This was and still might be my top contender. I like the size/weight (similar to the Tamron) but I it should have better IQ, especially >200mm
  • That got me looking at the Tamron 16-300mm. I love my old Tamron, and this one is supposed to be better in every way. The extra wide angle will likely mean more than the extra 30mm at the big end. The reviews mentioning the lack of sharpness and chromatic aberration especially >200mm scare me some. The weather sealing is nice for use on the water
  • All the "photographers" that hate superzooms seem to like the nikon 18-30 f3.5-5.6 better than the newer nikon 18-300. The extra length/weight, 50% more than my old tamron which is slightly more than the smaller nikon and the 16-300 and 2/3 the way to the Sigma Art that I rarely use because it's heavy and has a short range
  • Tamron 18-400mm. Again, I like my old tamron, an extra 130mm (almost 200mm in 35mm eq) over my current Tamron would really mean something for a lot of the pictures that I take. It's 120g lighter and about the same size as the bigger nikon, but that's still about 150g heavier than my old tamron and the Nikon I was originally sold on. Again, being weather sealed is nice

So what would you do? Anything else I would consider? The last 2 will likely run me a little more than I had planned...
 

Silverback

Senior Member
I continue to have great respect for my Nikon 18-200 F3.5-5.6 first generation (made in Japan, not China) lens.

Brent, that's interesting, wasn't that the one that when it first came out wasn't so good and then the later versions got raves? I remember lusting after that lens when my D40x was my main camera and ended up getting the Tamron 18-270 just because I couldn't justify the difference in price.

I considered stepping down as far as to a 200mm max zoom for better quality (that was actually why I bought the kit with the 18-140 in it when I bought my D7100 to try to get a decent range with sharper pics), but I just don't see the better IQ in the "nicer" Nikon lens, so I don't use it often. The only thing I really see is 100g lighter and sometimes I miss the shot losing the 140-270mm range.

I do definitely see an IQ difference going from any of these lenses to the Sigma Art 24-105, but the lens is just SO heavy that I rarely use it in normal situations. There have been times that I've decided to just suck it up and use it as a carry around lens (mostly when I knew I wasn't going to need the telephoto range) and I got great pictures but I was surprised how much I bump up against the 24mm end of the range inside, and it's just way too short for use with wildlife/moon...
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
First of all, I don't consider 200mm "super zoom". 300mm yes, but not 200mm. So, that being said, if I had to pick one super-zoom for a DX body it would be the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's a well builtd, solid performer.
 

Silverback

Senior Member
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:
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

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:
  • 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
Tamron pros:
  • 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
Cons:
  • 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?)

Why can't they make a 10-400mm f/2.8 that's sharp across the range, under 1lb and under $500? ;-)
 

Danno

Senior Member
I would agree with HF. I was at the Brick and Mortar store Wednesday to and the Tamron reps were there showing off their superzooms. They are a nice looking lens and seem well built. I think if I were to go that way again I would go with that 18-400 by Tamron. I also like the 6year warranty.
 

Silverback

Senior Member
Those of you that have handled the Tamron 18-400mm, is it as bulky and heavy as the specs make it sound?

If I actually like the big/old Tamron 18-270mm (about 23mm shorter and 150g lighter) for what it gets me (I feel like you get a lot of reach and picture quality for the size and especially weight), do you think I'll be happy with the 18-400?

The Nikon 18-300 is basically the same size (1mm shorter, a few mm thinner and I think 10g lighter), and looks like it's a better lens all around then the Tamron 18-270 so I figure that one I'm safe in guessing that I'll be happy with what I get for the package size.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Those of you that have handled the Tamron 18-400mm, is it as bulky and heavy as the specs make it sound?

If I actually like the big/old Tamron 18-270mm (about 23mm shorter and 150g lighter) for what it gets me (I feel like you get a lot of reach and picture quality for the size and especially weight), do you think I'll be happy with the 18-400?

The Nikon 18-300 is basically the same size (1mm shorter, a few mm thinner and I think 10g lighter), and looks like it's a better lens all around then the Tamron 18-270 so I figure that one I'm safe in guessing that I'll be happy with what I get for the package size.
After looking at the gallery posted above, I'd tell you to buy the damn lens and start doing some pushups if you're worried about having to lug around the extra few ounces. But then my daily walk-about rig consists of a D750 with battery grip and a 70-200mm f/2.8 so maybe I'm not the best judge...
 

Danno

Senior Member
Those of you that have handled the Tamron 18-400mm, is it as bulky and heavy as the specs make it sound?

If I actually like the big/old Tamron 18-270mm (about 23mm shorter and 150g lighter) for what it gets me (I feel like you get a lot of reach and picture quality for the size and especially weight), do you think I'll be happy with the 18-400?

The Nikon 18-300 is basically the same size (1mm shorter, a few mm thinner and I think 10g lighter), and looks like it's a better lens all around then the Tamron 18-270 so I figure that one I'm safe in guessing that I'll be happy with what I get for the package size.
Honestly not something I could answer for you. If you are worried about the weight you might rent one. I wish I had done that with my 200-500.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
 

Silverback

Senior Member
After looking at the gallery posted above, I'd tell you to buy the damn lens and start doing some pushups if you're worried about having to lug around the extra few ounces. But then my daily walk-about rig consists of a D750 with battery grip and a 70-200mm f/2.8 so maybe I'm not the best judge...

LOL, I'm a 6'4", 250# powerlifter... pushups aren't going to help anything past what I've already done ;-)

I just don't like my rig taking up that much space. I've found myself carrying it around with the Nikon 18-140 or even the typical 18-55 kit lens just because I don't want to take up the space when I know full well that the Tamron 18-270 or the Sigma 24-105 Art would get me a MUCH better picture of what I wanted. I almost never use a hood even though I know it would help A LOT of my pictures just because it instantly makes my rig 2" or so longer. I've even priced point and shoots a few times for vlogging even though the Nikon functions perfectly well and then I go and use my cel phone with a tripod mount adaptor on it instead.


It's not that I can't carry it, it's more like I hate stuff taking up space.
 

Silverback

Senior Member
As far as I can tell I want the size and weight of the Nikon but am having a hard time giving up (maybe more accurately, would really use) the 400mm and weather sealing of the Tamron. It doesn't help that I would argue that most of the pics that I screw up are motion blur and that the Tamron is longer, heavier and the VC is only rated good for 2.5 stops vs Nikon's 4 stops. The Tamron would only be better when shooting wildlife, the Nikon would be better most the rest of the time I use the camera, and I'm not sure either would be better with a more dedicated lens.

Right now I feel like my choice is a more practical lens and just figure I will miss some shots with it not having the focal length (nikon) vs a lens that in theory should capture everything the other will and more but I won't be as happy to carry around and will more likely show off my errors (Tamron).

All that said, I wished I had the Tamron 18-400 last night trying to get a pic of the full moon last night, had to do a lot of cropping to see any detail with the 18-270:
DSC_7702.JPG
 

Silverback

Senior Member
Well, considering how fast these things are flying off the shelves (numerous stories about people that are now waiting till January to get one and places that I was looking running out of stock in the last day) and the sample pictures + it will do everything I want it to = I pulled the trigger. I'll supposedly have it in my mitts by Friday.

:)
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Well, considering how fast these things are flying off the shelves (numerous stories about people that are now waiting till January to get one and places that I was looking running out of stock in the last day) and the sample pictures + it will do everything I want it to = I pulled the trigger. I'll supposedly have it in my mitts by Friday.
Congrats.

Which lens did you decide on?
 

Danno

Senior Member
Well, considering how fast these things are flying off the shelves (numerous stories about people that are now waiting till January to get one and places that I was looking running out of stock in the last day) and the sample pictures + it will do everything I want it to = I pulled the trigger. I'll supposedly have it in my mitts by Friday.

:)
Congratulations!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Top