Help picking a Tamron (or other brand) Lens for everyday use

[maryanne_morrow]

<p>Hi there,<br>

I was interested in a lens for my Nikon D90. Although I have several lenses already for specific purposes, I wanted to get a lens that would be a good lens for travelling or just one that would be a good walk around lens for everyday purposes. I really do like buying Nikon lenses almost exclusively, but haven't really come across a Nikon lens that is what I'm looking for. The Nikon 18-200 is probably the closest to what I'm looking for, however, I'd ideally like something that goes farther than 200mm. I was looking at either the Tamron 18-270 mm or the Tamron 28-300 mm. Does anyone have any experience with these lenses and, if so, which one (or other lens) should I consider? My biggest criteria are: superior optics and image quality, compactness for ease of everyday use. I know you can't "get it all" with one lens, but sometimes there are occasions when I just want to take one lens with me...I have my other lenses for all other occasions!!</p>

[mark_s8]

<p>Maryanne, have you looked at the Sigma 18-250. Plenty compact and plenty of reach on a copped sensor body. And it has VR. Check out the reviews on it.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>superior optics/ image quality and superzoom are mutually exclusive terms - there are just too many optical compromises involved in the creation of that type of lenses.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Superior optics isn't what comes to mind with most super-zooms. They all involve serious design compromises. On a crop body, if I may ask, why is 200mm not long enough?<br>

The Nikkor 18-200 VR sounds ideal for your intended use</p>

[maryanne_morrow]

<p>Mark,<br>

I owned a Sigma lens in the past. While I did find that it took nice images, I did have to have it repaired shortly after I bought it. The AF just started to make a "grinding" noise all of a sudden...definitely not something I did. I was reading some reviews online and encountered other people with similar issues with Sigma lens. It was still covered under their excellent warranty, but somehow I am still a little leary of sigma lenses.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>With all due respect, I think you are missing the point of working with (D) SLR format- the whole idea is that one can interchange lenses to match photographic requirements more specifically. </p>

<p>Now, that's not to say I recommend all DSRL owners purchase a bag full of lenses, but in this instance I can't see how you can get both a do it all lens reaching beyond 200mm and superior optics and IQ, I just don't think think there is a lens out there that covers all of these bases.</p>

<p>I came to this opinion myself from experience with a super-zoom lens like the ones afore mentioned and have happily split my required focal lengths over a few lenses ever since.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>like what the others have said, superior optics and image quality; and compactness don't come in the same boat. that lens just doesn't exist, i'm afraid. what "other" lens(es) do you have?</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Maryanne,<br>

I usually shoot with primes but I found this behaviour not so versatile when travelling, especially in family vacation. For that purpose I've bought a D5000 and a Tamron 18-270 VC. I keep in my bag a Nikon 35/1.8 DX too for low light situations. For a non professional use, Tamron is a very good all-around lens, especially for street photography. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you don't print real big, consider if you might be better off with a Nikon 16-85, and simply crop in as needed for most things.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Lots of good responses for you Maryanne.</p>

<p>It all comes down to compromise and ease of use.</p>

<p>The plus with super zooms is you can keep the lens on for most shooting scenarios and you don't risk dust on the sensor by changing the lens too often.</p>

<p>The downside is one many do not want to compromise on (myself included now)..That being image quality.</p>

<p>I tried the Nikkor 18-200 VR about 2 yrs ago and sold it after a year. The lens just did not satisfy my requirements at the wide or the tele end. My FX camera is not part of the equation for me as I keep one lens on it 95% of the time.</p>

<p>I finally ended up buying the Tamron 17-35. To round out my lenses for the D-300 I also have the Nikkor 50mm prime and the 80-200 AF-D<br>

I have a 15mm & 30mm gap with my lens choices, but nothing really to complain about.</p>

<p>Large excursion tele's have been called "walk-around" lenses..not a bad name really as they are really not suitable when tack sharp images are a criteria..but for average everyday shooting, they're fine with acceptable results for many.</p>

 

[robert_hooper1]

<p>My walk-around lens kit for a few years has been the Nikon 12-24mm f4 and Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Now, due to health reasons, for some of my photography, I am not able to trek as far into locations as l would like. Unfortunately, and sometimes embarrassingly, I am confined to shooting from tourist look-out points or trail heads reached by my 4x4. This has resulted in the need for a change in my kit and the inclusion of a light lens with a longer reach. Thus, I have purchased the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR and my "walk-around" and drive around kit now consists of the Nikon 12-24 f4, Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 and 70-300mm f4.5-5.6. </p>

<p>I may replace the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 at some point soon with the new Nikon 16-35, f4 if it gets good reviews.</p>

<p>One good thing about driving to photo opportunities is that I can carry a bigger bag of tricks containing primes and heavy, faster zooms to use should I be so inclined ;-)</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The key term here is "superior optics". No superzoom is going to match a kit of two or three good short ratio zooms in terms of IQ. That doesn't mean that these lenses are not sharp. They are just not as sharp especially at the long end. They are sharp enough to make a very good to excellent 8x10 or good to very good 11x14 (with minimal cropping), but if you're looking for top quality from end to end you won't find it here.</p>

<p>That said I have a Nikon 18-200 VR and I love it. I use it more than any other lens, but that has a lot to do with the kind of shooting I do and my desire to travel as light as possible. I shoot mostly on the streets and in the parks of NYC. It's very important for me to be able to go from wideangle to tele quickly. It also allows me to go out with one lens and no bag. That makes this a great street lens.</p>

<p>There's also no law that if you use a superzoom you can't use other lenses too. My 18-200 VR is one lens among many. Each lens has its advantages and its uses and I choose the len/lenses depending on which is best for what I'll be shooting.</p>

<p>As much as I love my 18-200 VR, if I were buying today I'd probably get a Sigma 18-250 OS HSM. It is a little longer (not that big a deal), has stabilization, is about as sharp as the Nikon, and it's a lot less expensive. The Tamron, from the reviews I've seen, is slower to focus than the Nikon or Sigma. The Sigma's HSM motor is fast and quiet.</p>