I would like to get a Tamron 18-400 lens and just read a revue. Apparently the 16-300 is a much better buy. Does anyone here have the 18-400 and are you happy with it? Is there an alternative that is not too heavy or bulky that someone can recommend? Thanks in advance.
@ludwigsdiana With regards to your query on the Tamron 18-400 lens, I would cordially reply, "Oh, hell yes!"
I have had one for about two years now. I would not trade it for the world (unless, of course, Tamron comes out with 18-500 or 18-600 lenses).
The utility and flexibility of it is amazing. If I'm out shooting landscapes and a bird lands or a critter wanders by in the distance, there's no panicked attempts to change lenses or thinking, oh well, that's one that I'm not getting. You just twist the collar and zoom in. Urban shooting is also effortless...want to shoot street scenes but also want to get a close-up of the architectural details at the top of a 5-story building? One lens.
Is it as razor sharp as others? No, but it is still very clear (and likely just as clear as any lens that goes from very wide to long zoom, including the 16-300). Need proof? Check out my albums, especially the landscape and wildlife shots, since they are all shot using that lens. In fact, just about all of my shots use it...the only time I don't use the 18-400 is when doing macros.
I'm not sure if the 16-300's extra 2mm is going to significantly expand landscape shots, but that extra 100mm of zoom is priceless.
@timerskine Thanks so much, that is exactly what I wanted to hear! I have been on youtube all day listening to the pros and cons, such a difficult decision! I will check your images :-)
I have a 16-300 lens and I love it. I have had it now for around 6 years. Guess if I was looking to get a new lens I would seriously consider the 18-400 for the extra zoom.
Hi Diana. I have one. It is convenient not having to mess around changing lenses, but I’m always disappointed by the softness of the photos. It could be operator error of course. I’m actually on the look out for something to replace it with. I tend to use the Nikon 200-500 for bird and wildlife, but it’s certainly not a carry around lens.
I have the 16-300. Actually got it from a fellow 365er! Versatile, great all-around. I imagine it might be nice to have the extra length if it's not bulky. The 16-300 is perfect travel weight for me.
I have the 18-400 on my canon and I love it. It is extremely versatile . From macro to zoom . It’s a tad heavy but alleviates the need to change lenses when I travel.
I use the Tamron 16-300 lens and it is the only lens I have. It is heavy in combination with my nikon but it is an excellent and very versatile lens. I love it. Weight with the Nikon D3400 is just over a kilo (a whisker over 2lb)
I don't have the lens you're looking at but I do have two Tamron lenses (17-50 mm and 90mm macro) and I love them. They just feel so good in my hands! So as a brand I highly recommend them.
@ludwigsdiana@30pics4jackiesdiamond
Diana and Jackie,
I noticed that you are both considering the 18-400. All the really good reviews in this thread are for the 16-300 which is not the same model.
Carole is disappointed with the model you are thinking of, while Tim is pleased with it. Do check out Tim's photos - they do tend to be a bit on the soft side at times.
Just thought I would offer my 2 cents worth since you are talking a lot of money there!
Yes - Tamron is a good brand, but not all models are created equal.
@farmreporter Thanks for your 2 cents worth Wendy, I have heard both positive and negative reviews. For that reason I am so unsure. I need it mostly for wildlife hence the interest in the 400mm.
From what I have heard - and I am by no means an expert - is that it is better to get a more dedicated lens with less versatility since it is very difficult to produce a lens with good optics at both ends of the focal length if the focal goes all the way from 18 to 400.
I have heard that you may not be pleased with the far end of the reach.
Ask an expert if you should consider a 200 - 400 lens instead if wildlife is your goal.
@farmreporter I know that it would be better Wendy, I have very bad osteo arthritis in my fingers and need a lens that I can keep on the camera most of the time. For that reason I want a versatile lens.
@salza Thanks Sally, that was a great idea. Unfortunately everyone is waiting for stock! Maybe it is a good sign that the lens is not so bad after all ;-)
@30pics4jackiesdiamond@timerskine@salza@yorkshirekiwi@darylo@mzzhope@casablanca@olivetreeann@farmreporter Hi everyone, just a short update re Tamron. I had the 18-400 for 2 weeks now and will be returning it in exchange for the 16-300. Too much that I was not happy with. Apart from the fact that it is much too heavy and stiff, the quality of the photos is not that great. I took it on a game drive and was very disappointed going over 200mm. Thanks for all your input and advice 😊
@ludwigsdiana thank you for the update Diana it's good to know what you thought about the lens especially when using the zoom. Guess I will stick with my 16-300 lens even though it's at least 6 years old
Thank you for your update, Diana. I was thinking about your osteo arthritis issues and had an idea.
What about investing in a second camera body. It does not need to have all the bells and whistles since a good lens is the most important part.
That way you could sling both around your neck - have the 200-400 for your wildlife shots and a smaller 17-50 for your all purpose work.
I wish I had a second body! (and a longer lens - lol!!)
@ludwigsdiana I just took out my 16-300 last weekend for portraits in a botanical garden. It was great at the zoom lengths. It will NOT be as sharp as a full-frame lens, but it's good:
Flowers (manually focused for a blurry foreground)
@salza I have just ordered one Sally, it seems to be the better option 😊 @farmreporter Thanks so much Wendy I really appreciate your input. I have the Lumix with a 60x zoom so I do not need another camera body. It seems that I will use both cameras. I only needed a new body for Lensbaby and nifty 50. I thought it would be practical to just carry one camera. 😊
@darylo I only saw this now Daryl, the photos look great. I am getting a bit tired of waiting as it seems nearly impossible to get one here. In the meanwhile I am considering other options Thanks for your input :-)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have had one for about two years now. I would not trade it for the world (unless, of course, Tamron comes out with 18-500 or 18-600 lenses).
The utility and flexibility of it is amazing. If I'm out shooting landscapes and a bird lands or a critter wanders by in the distance, there's no panicked attempts to change lenses or thinking, oh well, that's one that I'm not getting. You just twist the collar and zoom in. Urban shooting is also effortless...want to shoot street scenes but also want to get a close-up of the architectural details at the top of a 5-story building? One lens.
Is it as razor sharp as others? No, but it is still very clear (and likely just as clear as any lens that goes from very wide to long zoom, including the 16-300). Need proof? Check out my albums, especially the landscape and wildlife shots, since they are all shot using that lens. In fact, just about all of my shots use it...the only time I don't use the 18-400 is when doing macros.
I'm not sure if the 16-300's extra 2mm is going to significantly expand landscape shots, but that extra 100mm of zoom is priceless.
tl;dr: Yes, buy the 18-400
Diana and Jackie,
I noticed that you are both considering the 18-400. All the really good reviews in this thread are for the 16-300 which is not the same model.
Carole is disappointed with the model you are thinking of, while Tim is pleased with it. Do check out Tim's photos - they do tend to be a bit on the soft side at times.
Just thought I would offer my 2 cents worth since you are talking a lot of money there!
Yes - Tamron is a good brand, but not all models are created equal.
I have heard that you may not be pleased with the far end of the reach.
Ask an expert if you should consider a 200 - 400 lens instead if wildlife is your goal.
What about investing in a second camera body. It does not need to have all the bells and whistles since a good lens is the most important part.
That way you could sling both around your neck - have the 200-400 for your wildlife shots and a smaller 17-50 for your all purpose work.
I wish I had a second body! (and a longer lens - lol!!)
Flowers (manually focused for a blurry foreground)
Wildlife at same location at 300mm
@farmreporter Thanks so much Wendy I really appreciate your input. I have the Lumix with a 60x zoom so I do not need another camera body. It seems that I will use both cameras. I only needed a new body for Lensbaby and nifty 50. I thought it would be practical to just carry one camera. 😊