Tamron 16-300

[_rubinho_]

I've been using a Tamron 18-270 lens for a couple of years now and for my purposes it's perfect despite the fairly gnarly distortion throughout the range. I've just seen they've released a new 16-300mm replacement currently at Amazon for £529. I've had a hunt around but I've not found a comparison between the two lenses or even a decent review of the new one. Has anybody had any experience of this lens yet and care to give an opinion? Any links on a comparison or review? Trying to work out if it's worth me chopping in the old one for the new one and take advantage of the extra 32mm range.

[Mr Will]

I'm not a fan of that sort of lens, so would say stick with what you have and spend the money on something longer/wider/faster/less distorted (delete as appropriate).

[Simpo Two]

Time to split it into two lenses and get better performance/aperture. It's not worth the money for the few extra mm IMHO.

[_rubinho_]

Two shorter range lenses covering the same overall range is ideal for sure. I travel a lot and so a single superzoom is a compromise between space/weight/convenience and image quality I have to (and am happy to) make. If the 16-300 had better IQ as well as the extra range I'd definitely chop my current one in and get the new one.

I have a fast wide-angle zoom on my list for my next lens but that's a whole other conversation and has a specific purpose beyond my normal walkabout requirements.

[Mr Will]

At a guess it will be fractionally better, if you want to shoot test charts with it. Not so much better that you'd notice the difference in the real world and certainly not hundreds of pounds better.

Keep what you have and spend the money on the fast, wide lens for the mysterious special project.

[JonRB]

I ran a Tamron 75-250 on an Olympus OM-2n back in the old film days, and have a Tamron 70-300 that I bought for my Canon 350D on the strength of that old 75-250, and have retained for my 650D.

I have to say that I really don't think much of the 70-300. It has major focus issues at full zoom and has pretty poor definition. I guess they don't make them like they used to.

[rottie102]

JonRB said:

I ran a Tamron 75-250 on an Olympus OM-2n back in the old film days, and have a Tamron 70-300 that I bought for my Canon 350D on the strength of that old 75-250, and have retained for my 650D.

I have to say that I really don't think much of the 70-300. It has major focus issues at full zoom and has pretty poor definition. I guess they don't make them like they used to.

How is that of any relevance to the OP?

[JonRB]

rottie102 said:

How is that of any relevance to the OP?

Dunno. I was drunk at the time.

[Golaboots]

Absolutely not worth it in my opinion. Very little extra reach either end and probably similar image quality and speed.

Have to echo the advice to spend on something much wider/faster/longer.
Alternatively if you have a nikon, the 18-200 nikkor is widely regarded as the best super zoom going, could get a small boost to all your shots with one of these.

I started with an 18-200 nikkor but found most of my best shots were with the cheapy 50mm f1.8 I bought for low light.

[RobDickinson]

You won't notice the extra 30 mm at the long end.

You might notice the extra 2mm at the wide end, that's certainly more. But you can always stitch for more width.

[creampuff]

_rubinho_ said:

Trying to work out if it's worth me chopping in the old one for the new one and take advantage of the extra 32mm range.

It is not an extra 32mm range, it is an inconsequential 30mm at the long end but a significant 2mm at the wide end. 2mm at that wide end will be a noticable increase in your field of view.

But it will likely be full of annoying distortion. I'd be inclined to wait for some test shots before coughing up.