Tamron AF 18-200mm or Nikon 18-105mm for D3100/D5100

sjgcit said:

It's a great lens - sharp and contrasty over the whole frame at all focal lengths and apertures.

By comparison the 18-200 is nowhere near as sharp across the frame.

As for the "extra" reach of the 18-200 you'll find that cropping the 18-105 VR gives you just as good results.

--
StephenG

Click to expand...

I agree--get the 18-105 VR, vs. the Tamron. I had the non-focus motor version of the Tamron 18-200, and I currently own the 18-105. The Tamron needed a lot of light in order to focus sharply. My disappointment with the focus was the main reason for my getting the 18-105 (I couldn't afford the Nikon 18-200 VR). My 18-105 VR is noticeably sharper than the Tamron, and it also has VR. If I had the money, though, I would get the Nikon 18-200 VR over the 18-105 VR. It has better reach and metal mounts, and I think the image quality would be suitable for me.

Get the nikon and if you must move closer to get the shot you want , use your feet and stop being lazy.

If you are going to compare "slow normal" sushine lens you need to put the Nikon 16-85 VR on the list. You may decide to get something else.
--
I Shoot RAW

So, Snap, you're best shot presently is the 'new' Tamron 18-270mm PZD .

You'll cover it all , with the known compromises, and will get your One Lens solution.
Go get it. OK

Cheers,

Ed