Tamron 16-300 IQ

Started May 18, 2015 | User reviews
(unknown member) New Member • Posts: 11
Tamron 16-300 IQ

I have to admit that I was a bit sceptical about the IQ from a lens with such a huge F/L. Something just had to give! I was pleasantly surprised when I got some really outstanding images from it and that's coming from someone who is really fussy about IQ and used to Canon L series lenses. It's now permanently attached to my 70D and although not a wedding lens, I do intend to use it for candid shots at my next wedding shoot, especially outdoors, a massive 25-480mm F/L range with very little loss of IQ. The attached image was taken at 300mm, F/8 from less than 4 feet away.

Tamron 16-300

Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro
Lens • Canon EF-S, Nikon F (DX), Sony/Minolta Alpha • B016
Announced: Feb 6, 2014
Canon shooter1958's score
5.0
Average community score
4.1
Canon EOS 70D Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
jirvingw Forum Member • Posts: 88
Re: Tamron 16-300 IQ

Nikon D7000 user, I have had my lens for a week and a half. I agree mostly. It is decently sharp. The Tamron 70-300 is sharper. The Tamron 17-50vc is sharper. But as a one lens option it is good. It is a great lens for closeups of flowers and butterflys. I have a couple of shots of sitting birds at 300mm f/10 that have good sharpness on the bird that is in the center of the frame. Bird about 20 feet away.

It is a replacement for my Nikon 18-200 that was stolen. I think it may be a somewhat better lens than the Nikon.

My normal kit is the Tamron 17-50vc and the Tamron 70-200(the older non vc one, my favorite lens)

The Tamron 70-300 is part of my wifes kit.

-- hide signature --

John

buybuybuy
buybuybuy Senior Member • Posts: 5,388
Re: Tamron 16-300 IQ

That's pretty good reach for a wedding. The 150-600 will give you even better reach, and with a 2X TC, you'd have a 1200mm lens with which to shoot candids.

P.S. The supplied image is too large for my monitor.

OP (unknown member) New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Tamron 16-300 IQ

jirvingw wrote:

Nikon D7000 user, I have had my lens for a week and a half. I agree mostly. It is decently sharp. The Tamron 70-300 is sharper. The Tamron 17-50vc is sharper. But as a one lens option it is good. It is a great lens for closeups of flowers and butterflys. I have a couple of shots of sitting birds at 300mm f/10 that have good sharpness on the bird that is in the center of the frame. Bird about 20 feet away.

It is a replacement for my Nikon 18-200 that was stolen. I think it may be a somewhat better lens than the Nikon.

My normal kit is the Tamron 17-50vc and the Tamron 70-200(the older non vc one, my favorite lens)

The Tamron 70-300 is part of my wifes kit.

I think Tamron have come a long way recently. I had the 17-50 VC 2.8 and that was sharp but as I've got a 5D2 now as well as my 70D I have a Canon 24-70L on the 5D2. In my local camera shop, they have an ad for Tamron "New eyes for Industry" and I think that's very true. Don't do enough weddings to justify a 70-200 2.8 yet but can always borrow one from the afore mentioned camera shop. Wouldn't mind seeing your bird photos.

Phil

jirvingw Forum Member • Posts: 88
Samples

I have a few shots taken with this lens posted on my Flicker page https://www.flickr.com/photos/jirvingw/

The Gosling, The Tree Swallows, The three white flowers titled dsa0744, the Goose and goslings titled Mother, The cluster of white flowers titled dsa0186crop and the single white flower titled dsa0155.  All are shot in raw, all are given my usual sharpening and tonal enhancements which do give them more punch.

-- hide signature --

John

AdamT
AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,986
Anyone compared to the 18-270s ?

has anyone compared this lens to the 18-270 models ? - the slow focussing heavy 1st version with the noisy VC was better optically through the range and especially at the edges than the later, compact 18-270PZ by quite a margin, the 18-300 looks like they`ve resigned themselves that bigger lens = better optics and gone back to something like the original 18-270 - is it as good ?

-- hide signature --

** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III
Efrem Junior Member • Posts: 47
Re: Tamron 16-300 IQ

I see (from a Tamron ad on the dpreview front page; it rotates through at least three lenses, refresh the page a few times and  the ad for this one will show up before long) that they're offering a $50 rebate on this lens from any authorized U.S. retailer, valid from 2+ weeks ago through June 30. That's a large enough chunk of its $550-600 street price to notice, though probably not enough to entice someone who wasn't already thinking about it fairly seriously

Do folks here think this hints that it will be superseded soon? Might it be that most buyers don't see a big enough difference between this lens and the slightly less capable Sigma to justify a price about twice as high? Or might there be some other reason (like slower-than-expected sales)?

 Efrem's gear list:Efrem's gear list
Nikon D5100
OP (unknown member) New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Samples

jirvingw wrote:

I have a few shots taken with this lens posted on my Flicker page https://www.flickr.com/photos/jirvingw/

The Gosling, The Tree Swallows, The three white flowers titled dsa0744, the Goose and goslings titled Mother, The cluster of white flowers titled dsa0186crop and the single white flower titled dsa0155. All are shot in raw, all are given my usual sharpening and tonal enhancements which do give them more punch.

Excellent images John, I really love the lens as a do all lens but I have other kit for my weddings - Canon 17-55 2.8, 10-22 and Sigma 50-150 2.8. I could arguably use the Tamron in good light for candid shots and as a back up if my main lenses fail!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads