Nikon 18-200 VRII or Tamron 18-270 VC PZD ?

<p>OK, I am confused now, after deciding on the D3100 with Nikon 18-200 VRII as a nice combo that is good for my better half who likes using my D700, but found it too heavy..........until someone mentioned that the Tamron 18-270 VC PZD is a better option...........<br>

Any comments please ? <br>

I have also read that the Tamron VC is a problem.....is that still a problem with the PZD version ? <br>

Too many choices.........</p>

<p>Exactly what did that someone say about the Tamron that makes it better than the Nikon?</p>

<p>Someone I know, who is not a pixel peeper, recently got a D7000 and that Tamron lens. When they told me, my response was, <em>Really? You got that lens? Eh?</em> A month later they returned the lens for a refund. They're now using their old, ED 70-300 (non VR) for that focal length range and the images are better.</p>

<p>One thing for sure. The Tamron is not constructed NEARLY as well as the Nikon.</p>

<p>The Nikon works great at up to 12 MP imho. But don't try and print really big from the long end of any of those superzooms.</p>

<p>Frankly, if I were in the market for one of these today, I'd go right for the 16-85. I'd crop in when needed at the long end, and add a 70-300 VR as soon as I could afford it.</p>

<p>Hmmmm............maybe it's just getting too complicated now and I am just thinking too hard about all this. <br>

Perhaps something simple is better then.......say Leica M6 classic & 35mm Summicron........LOL !<br>

Or Leica M3 & 50/1.5 Summarit..........now that will go down well.......</p>

<p>If you want simplicity, simply get the Nikon lens. You won't be disappointed!</p>

<p>I own the Tamron 18-270 VC PZD and think it is by fare the best all purpose carry around day tripping and vacation lens. That said, I would never take it on a paid gig. You really need to define your expectations from these kind of "all in one" zoom lenses and make a decision from there. I own two Tamron lenses and think they are a great alternative to the pricy Nikon lens lineup.</p>

<p>Í'm with Elliot, just get the 18-200 VR, and I'm shure your better half will be happy with that..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps something simple is better then.......say Leica M6 classic & 35mm Summicron........LOL !<br />Or Leica M3 & 50/1.5 Summarit..........now that will go down well.......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not think so, because you told us she wants a Zoom, and not changing lenses, let alone changing film and have it developed all the time.. LOL</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A month later they returned the lens for a refund.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why it took them so long.</p>

<p>I would never buy any AF lens whose maximum aperture is below f5.6 to use it on Nikon AF bodies. Nikon's AF is designed to work with f5.6 or faster. There is no Nikon AF lens that is slower than f5.6 in any part of its zoom range. Only 3rd-party lenses go down to f6.3, etc. In fact, I find f5.6 too slow indoors; that is why I prefer the 24-120mm/f4 instead.</p>

<p>I have never even seen the Tamron 18-270, but I tested their 70-300mm Di VC. VC (VR) works ok as expected on that lens.</p>

<p>There is going to be a huge difference in trade-in value if you care about that sort of thing.</p>

<p>I would stay with your original choice, the Nikon 18-200. I have used it a lot for two years and it it is especially helpful when changing lenses is not practical on the run, or on 'missions' where a lot of gear is a problem. It would be a nice combo with the D3100, a real 'self-sufficient' package. That said, I would echo other posts regarding ANY lens ... read the test reports and be aware which apertures and focal lengths are 'best' ... 'better' ... and ... '?'. If I were going out, and was limited to only ONE lens in DX, and planning to shoot in known and unknown situations ... the Nikon 18-200VRII would be it.</p>

<p>I have only heard good things about the Nikkor 18-200 VR.</p>

<p>I've had my Nikon 18-200 for a few years and I've been quite happy with it. It sits on my D300 most of the time. My only complaint (and it's more of a nuisance than anything else) is the lens creep. I understand that newer copies have fixed this.</p>

<p>Although I own the 18-200, If I were going to buy a new lens it would be the 28-300, no big deal though they are both good all around Lenses. A Tamaron. no way.</p>

<p>I have a D90, a D3100, and the Tamron 18-270 VC PZD and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR. IQ for the two lenses are similar. Both are very good up to 8x10 prints. The Nikon is better built and focuses a little faster. If she is going to give it heavy use and/or if she is hard on her gear, go with the Nikon. The Tamron is significantly smaller and lighter, and the extra 70mm makes a difference. If size and weight are most important, as it was with me, go with the Tamron. Another point is that the Tamron, being smaller and lighter, balances better on the small D3100. I would go with your wife and handle both lenses on a D3100 body and let her decide.</p>

<p>Photo.net just tested the Tamron. Check it out. Just enter it in the search box above.</p>