Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2011, 12:36 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingman View Post
I use the Tarmron 18-270 VC on my D90 as a ravel lens combo. It is compact, lightweight and provides a versatile range. At F8 (or there abouts) the image quality is excellent through out the entire zoom range--FYI I am a bit of a pixel peeper, and the image quality is fine by my standards! I have the non PZD version of the Tamron lens.

Jehan

thanks i really want a all in one ..... i was almost swayed though to buying 2 more
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 9:40 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The Nikon 18-105 VR you already have, plus the Tamron SP 70-300 VC ($360) are better and cheaper than the Tamron 18-270 VC ($554).

It's your call whether the greater convenience is worth the $200 and the lower image quality.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 11:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

but how much lower quality are we talking? isnt the nikon 70 300 better than the tammy .... im only a keen amateur and get the odd picture printed for personal however i have been invited to 4 weddings next year and someimes take a few while i am potting about
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 2:50 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simple View Post
but how much lower quality are we talking? isnt the nikon 70 300 better than the tammy ....
The Nikon and the Tamron are virtually identical in performance... The
Tamron's VC works slightly better than Nikon's VR so many report sharper
images beyond 200mm as a result...

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?te...wu&test_ob=229

Tamron SP 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?te...wu&test_ob=284

I've also heard (but can't confirm) that the Nikon 70-300VR was actually
designed by Tamron for Nikon...

Both lenses are very good value for the money in their class and you couldn't
make a mistake buying either one...

JMHO, YMMV...
__________________
William

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Oct 17, 2011 at 5:57 PM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 3:05 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

thanks again LOL .... mmmm decisions decisions
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 5:21 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

You didn't think this would be easy, did you?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2011, 1:06 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

the tamron looks ok 70 300 .... btw although i do use the 18 105 it is not my lense so when me and the missus go out shooting together im stuck for a wide angle so is the 16 85 really better than the 18 105 and worth the extra $ / that a lot of extra money .

i have been shooting a lot of football lately and do see the need of extra reach over 200
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2011, 6:40 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

Nothing wrong with the 18-105, it's one of the better kit lenses...

If you already like the performance of the 18-105 you can pick them up used
for really cheap and have your very own, no more sharing...

If you buy used from a reputable retailer you can usually even get a short term
warranty for peace of mind...

If you have your heart set on an all-in-one that's fine but keep in mind that
the more range a lens has the less performance at either or both ends of
that range... Some better than others but that's just the way it is, there is
really no getting around it...

Only you can be the judge of what's "good enough"...

PS:
Here are the two lens review sites I use:

http://www.lenstip.com/lenses_reviews.html

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

They are as good a guage as anything else to compare lenses you may be
interested in...
__________________
William

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Oct 18, 2011 at 6:46 AM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2011, 10:02 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The 16-85 has less chromatic aberration and distortion than the 18-105, but they are equally sharp and, where their ranges overlap, have about the same vignetting. Unless you have a problem with the CA you get from the 18-105, I think you'd be happy with another. And while new ones go for $400, Adorama.com has refurbished ones for $270.

On the other hand, the difference between 16mm and 18mm might be more than you think, and the difference between 85mm and 105mm might be less. The 16-85 has an angle of view of from 83 to 1850' while the 18-105 has an angle of view of from 76 to 1520'. Plus, it doesn't make a lot of sense for there to be two of the same lens in the same household, when you can get a different lens that can do something the other can't. In addition to the 16-85, you might also consider the 24-120/4, the 24-85/2.8-4.0 or the 24-70/2.8, or any of the excellent third party standard zooms.

In addition to the two lens review sites Wizzard0003 mentioned, I also recommend:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2011, 11:35 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

i understand all lenses have faults and wonder how much image quality differs on a 18 270 and a 70 300 ? i just had a email tamron are offering 5 years warrnty and upto 50 pound cash back on certian lenses
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 AM.