Nikon 18-300 tamron 16-300, sigma 18-300

petert

petert

Suspended / Banned
Messages
679
Name
pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone had any of these and they any good? Or does the nikon 18-200 trump them all?
 
As you might expect, super-zoom lenses like those in your list, are usually something of a compromise and often don't really excel in any aspect except for having a wide zoom range. They are essentially trying to cover too much optical ground.
 
I realise that, I have the 35 1.8 which will be my most used lens but want something as a walk around with that extra reach for wildlife which I love doing but it's hit and miss as to when so no point spending too much on a dedicated lens for it
 
Or would.it be better to get a shorter zoom and the 70-300 if no one's had any of the above
 
petert said:
Or would.it be better to get a shorter zoom and the 70-300 if no one's had any of the above
Click to expand...

The 70-300 vr is very good. Works well on fx or DX too.
The tamron 70-300 vc is equally as good, if not better , and is cheaper too.
 
Thanks worth a look though I've heard a few quality control issues on the tamron
 
Last edited:
sorry, the above was with a tamron 70-300 in dark conditions across about 30-40yds of river, high iso and of course cropped.
 
I know it's not exactly a full and forensic review, but I did try a Sigma 18-300 in Gatwick airport when I had an hour to kill once, because I couldn't spend another minute sitting in Starbucks. The lens was genuinely terrible, but then it was also ridiculously cheap - you get what you pay for I suppose.

I looked briefly at the Nikon 18-300 not too long ago as a "touring" lens when I only have room to take one lens with me. However I was put off by the extra weight over the 18-200 which is what I bought in the end.

Like others have said though, the 18-300's tend to be a bit of a "jack of all trades, master of none". I suppose the same could be said of 18-200, but I don't find what comes out of it too bad actually. I guess it depends how closely one looks...
 
I've decided to give them a miss I'll get something shorter and one of the 70-300s
 
Last edited:
I've had 2 copies of the Tamron 70-300 VC (note, not the cheaper non VC one) and both have been cracking lenses

I sold the first one when i upgraded to a 300mm f4, but after 6 months ended up getting another one as i missed it so much (still have the 300mm f4 though), and i now use it like you as a walkabout lens when i'm not out specifically looking for wildlife
 
I'll probably get that one going by the prices
 
Yeah, they really are a cracking lens for the price, and much less of a compromise than an 18-300mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top