8 replies to this topic

[Scott_G]

I'm considering purchasing a D7100.  I was (still am) considering a couple other lenses to go with it, but then I saw the Tamron 16-300.  I have a Tamron 70-300 for my current camera (Pentax K30) and I like the quality I get with it.

 

Not being cheap, but rather practical, I was thinking of just getting the 16-300 instead.  I'm interested in hearing the opinion of folks who have the lens.  I'm not entirely stupid.  I know that "all-in-one" lenses have trade-offs and drawbacks.  My needs will be shots for work (PR type shots of folks and products) on a daily basis, and then more artistic-type shots whenever I get the chance to go out and shoot.  Plus, making another international trip with camera equipment, and I thought having just one lens would be easier than a whole case, which is what I did last time.

 

Is it reasonably sharp at both ends?  Is it "fast enough" for a wide range of shots?  How well does it handle night shots?  Any comments, positive or negative, will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!

 

Very best,

 

Scott G.

[TBonz]

Not sure if anyone here has one.  Here is the link in the lens database:

 

Tamron 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro - Tamron Lenses - Nikon Lens Database - Lens Database - NikonForums.com

 

No reviews at this point...I've heard good things about the Nikon 18-300 but have not used one myself.  You might want to take a look at that lens as well...

[Merco_61]

To clarify, the good Nikkor 18-300 is the relatively new version that goes to f/6.3 at the tele end. The old version was quite good on 12 MP, but not up to scratch on 24 MP DX sensors.

 

This is what I wrote about the Nikkor earlier.

 

The star among the current superzooms is the 18-300 3.5-6.3. It vignettes slightly wide open at 18-20 mm but the corners are there already at f/4. There is close to no CA and very little distortion. Up to 200 mm it is not far behind the shorter range consumer zooms in sharpness, if not even equal or even better at some focal lengths. Over 200, it gets a bit softer but is still better than other superzooms.

Read more: Really basic questions on current DSLR models - Beginner Questions - NikonForums.com

 

Nikonite uses the Nikkor with good results as a superzoom walkaround solution.

 

I can't remember seeing anything shot with the Tamron 16-300 in the forums, so I wonder if anyone here has got one.

[Nikonite]

I can't speak to the Tamron, but I've had the new Nikikor 18-300 for about a year now. I think it's a great lens and have found NONE of the faults the so called reviewers have lamented. I have a 35mm prime lens for low light shots, but since I bought the 18-300 I have yet to mount the prime. This includes low light shots at the 300mm end. If the Tamron is equal to or better than the Nikkor you can't go wrong.   

[deano]

I used to older version of the 18-300 on my D90 and it worked well.  However, it doesn't perform as well on my full frame D750.

[Nikonite]

I agree. Before my D7100 I had a D90 and a Nikkor 18-200. The 18-200 worked well on the D90, but not on my D7100. I assume the higher pixel count of the D7100 showed the weaknesses of the 18-200. However, as mentioned I'm very happy with the new Nikkor 18-300.  

[Merco_61]

The higher pixel count, and the lack of an optical low-pass filter (OLPF) raises the demands on the lens considerably. With lenses that can handle the sensor, the results are stunning compared to older bodies though.

Dean, the D750 has less pixel density than the D90 had, but it also has a weaker OLPF and a signal processor that gives much cleaner files than the old 12 MP DX sensors did. This lower density is the reason why it still has the OLPF as the lens itself doesn't work like a low-pass filter as it does in the D7100, D7200 and D810.

[Scott_G]

Got my D7100.  However, they sent me the wrong lens.  Oh, it's a Tamron 16-300, but it's the Canon version.  I have a test pattern printed, waiting to shoot as soon as I get the lens.  Well, I may have to play with it a little before I shoot the pattern.  Hehe!

[Scott_G]

Okay, very quick shoot of a simple pattern.  Note: it wasn't all that clear printed at "fine" on my inkjet.  A look at the original PDF shows it wasn't all that great when I downloaded it.  ::sigh::  No modifications have been done on the pix, other than a simple resize.  All of them should still be at 300 dpi.

 

1st pic is at 16mm, f/3.5 from about a foot away.  A bit overexposed.

 

 

2nd is, I think, the cleanest of the lot.  Same distance, f/11.  A touch dark maybe.

 

 

Then I backed up. . . I don't know.  30 feet?  300mm f/6.5.  This seems to be the blurriest (Most blurred?).

 

 

Last shot, same distance.  300mm at f/11

 

 

All shot from a tripod, totally on manual.  I did not use a remote release because, well. . . I was too lazy.  The blur on the 3rd shot (which was actually the last shot I took) might be related to me pushing the button myself.

 

I've tried shooting the moon with this lens, too.  Even at 300 with remote release, I find it a little soft.  I had to play with this a little to get it this sharp.  But again, it's not mission critical for me to get super sharp details in every shot.

 

 

This is just the beginning.  I'll be able to test it a bit more in the next week or so.