T4i and Tamron superzooms

I currently own a t4i and was saving for the Tamron 16-300 to take on vacation next summer. I will be chasing after my 2 young grandsons and won't have time to change lenses on the go. Now that Tamron has come out with the 18-400 I am having trouble deciding which one to buy. Does anyone have any experience with the new lens? Would welcome opinions on the 2 lenses.

Do you really need that kind of range / weight on vacation?

FooHead wrote:

Do you really need that kind of range / weight on vacation?

I second this. 300mm on APS-C equals 480mm. That's enough to shoot little birds or maybe squirrels. How about a 24-105? That should cover a lot of ground except maybe real wide shots.

Not sure where my son's taking us on vacation yet. I have been leaning towards the 16-300 due to its weight being close to my 18-135 usm. Sorta liked the idea of having the 400 reach but not sure about the extra weight. Maybe I will save the extra money from buying the 16-300 towards a 77d, which I have been wanting. Just wish I could hold one first before buying to make sure. I have small hands and already know I don't want 80d due to size as I was able to hold one of those in the local Best Buy.

If you want small maybe take a look at the new SL2? It's apparently pretty good.

I have an 80D and an old 1100D.  For vacations I find the 80D to big and bulky to drag around all day so I leave it at home at take the 1100D.  I find the 18-135 stm is more than enough reach for me.

I have an SL1 which is nice when traveling and on the go. I also have the Tamron 18-200mm and I really enjoy that for casual family and travel. It's versatile and only cost $199. It's not big or heavy either. Is it the best image quality, of course not. But it's great for the uses I mentioned.

I used the Canon SL2 + Tamron 18-400mm extensively on a recent trip to Cancun.

I find the extra reach essential for my interest in wildlife photography. Sharpness on the long end seemed very good to me also.  300mm does not often cut it for wildlife for me.

Lots of sample images on

http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

and

http://facebook.com/daveblinderphotography

milliemann wrote:

I currently own a t4i and was saving for the Tamron 16-300 to take on vacation next summer. I will be chasing after my 2 young grandsons and won't have time to change lenses on the go. Now that Tamron has come out with the 18-400 I am having trouble deciding which one to buy. Does anyone have any experience with the new lens? Would welcome opinions on the 2 lenses.

as a general travel lens, the 2mm at the wide end (about an extra 6 degrees) are for many people more useful than the extra reach, especially when one also considers the extra weight. Further, tests at e photo zine show a substantial drop of IQ at 400mm.  The 16-300 seems to fare better at 300mm. So, not sure if you really gain anything with the 400mm, cropping the 300mm a bit give a similar IQ.

Thank you everyone for your responses. After much more research and thinking about pros and cons of the 2 lenses I have decided to go with my original plan of the 16-300 for its lighter weight and lower cost.

davebreal wrote:

I used the Canon SL2 + Tamron 18-400mm extensively on a recent trip to Cancun.

I find the extra reach essential for my interest in wildlife photography. Sharpness on the long end seemed very good to me also. 300mm does not often cut it for wildlife for me.

Lots of sample images on

http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

and

http://facebook.com/daveblinderphotography

Hi Dave'

For the OP, how do you like the 18-400 compared to the 16-300 (reach notwithstanding)?

I've seen some posts where folks have preferred the new lens.

TIA,

R2

ps. I've used the (older) 18-270 and IQ was fair.  It was pretty well-behaved otherwise.

Jpeg or raw?

R2D2 wrote:

davebreal wrote:

I used the Canon SL2 + Tamron 18-400mm extensively on a recent trip to Cancun.

I find the extra reach essential for my interest in wildlife photography. Sharpness on the long end seemed very good to me also. 300mm does not often cut it for wildlife for me.

Lots of sample images on

http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

and

http://facebook.com/daveblinderphotography

Hi Dave'

For the OP, how do you like the 18-400 compared to the 16-300 (reach notwithstanding)?

I've seen some posts where folks have preferred the new lens.

TIA,

R2

ps. I've used the (older) 18-270 and IQ was fair. It was pretty well-behaved otherwise.

Hi R2D2 - The 18-400's sharpness at 400mm seems to outperform the 16-300's at sharpness at 300mm. I have not performed any testing to back that up, though I view my raw conversions at 100% while post processing.

My personal opinion is that the 18-400 is in a different league than the 16-300 though they are both nice lenses.  Sharpness and image quality are very important to me because I do try to print to 12" x18" or greater.

I miss having the width of 16mm but the 18-400 is truly an all-in-one lens for what I like shooting (landscapes, butterflies, birds, etc). I sadly returned my loaner 18-400 VC to Tamron, however I have a personal copy on order.

I have a Tamron Tech Tip article with nature images through the 18-400mm VC which will come out in the Tamron eNewsletter in November. This features yet unseen images from a recent trip to Mexico.

I think most beginner and experienced users will enjoy both lenses. The bang for the buck seems good to me when versatility is important.  If I can print to 16x20 at 300dpi and not see any "mush" I get excited.

I have more personal shots from taking the 18-400mm VC to Mexico and will try to post more high res samples soon to http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

Someone in a different thread recently tried to tell me all of my sample shots are soft. They must not understand that when I post a 100% crop wide open, I am showing everyone a worst-case scenario by intention.

davebreal wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

davebreal wrote:

I used the Canon SL2 + Tamron 18-400mm extensively on a recent trip to Cancun.

I find the extra reach essential for my interest in wildlife photography. Sharpness on the long end seemed very good to me also. 300mm does not often cut it for wildlife for me.

Lots of sample images on

http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

and

http://facebook.com/daveblinderphotography

Hi Dave'

For the OP, how do you like the 18-400 compared to the 16-300 (reach notwithstanding)?

I've seen some posts where folks have preferred the new lens.

TIA,

R2

ps. I've used the (older) 18-270 and IQ was fair. It was pretty well-behaved otherwise.

Hi R2D2 - The 18-400's sharpness at 400mm seems to outperform the 16-300's at sharpness at 300mm. I have not performed any testing to back that up, though I view my raw conversions at 100% while post processing.

My personal opinion is that the 18-400 is in a different league than the 16-300 though they are both nice lenses. Sharpness and image quality are very important to me because I do try to print to 12" x18" or greater.

I miss having the width of 16mm but the 18-400 is truly an all-in-one lens for what I like shooting (landscapes, butterflies, birds, etc). I sadly returned my loaner 18-400 VC to Tamron, however I have a personal copy on order.

I have a Tamron Tech Tip article with nature images through the 18-400mm VC which will come out in the Tamron eNewsletter in November. This features yet unseen images from a recent trip to Mexico.

I think most beginner and experienced users will enjoy both lenses. The bang for the buck seems good to me when versatility is important. If I can print to 16x20 at 300dpi and not see any "mush" I get excited.

I have more personal shots from taking the 18-400mm VC to Mexico and will try to post more high res samples soon to http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

Someone in a different thread recently tried to tell me all of my sample shots are soft. They must not understand that when I post a 100% crop wide open, I am showing everyone a worst-case scenario by intention.

Thanks for the detailed reply Dave'.

These superzooms keep on getting better and better.  It'd be nice to have an all-in-one solution for those times you want to go fast and free (with just a single lens and no encumbrances).  I'll have to keep this one in mind.

Many thanks for the info,

R2

R2D2 wrote:

davebreal wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

davebreal wrote:

I used the Canon SL2 + Tamron 18-400mm extensively on a recent trip to Cancun.

I find the extra reach essential for my interest in wildlife photography. Sharpness on the long end seemed very good to me also. 300mm does not often cut it for wildlife for me.

Lots of sample images on

http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

and

http://facebook.com/daveblinderphotography

Hi Dave'

For the OP, how do you like the 18-400 compared to the 16-300 (reach notwithstanding)?

I've seen some posts where folks have preferred the new lens.

TIA,

R2

ps. I've used the (older) 18-270 and IQ was fair. It was pretty well-behaved otherwise.

Hi R2D2 - The 18-400's sharpness at 400mm seems to outperform the 16-300's at sharpness at 300mm. I have not performed any testing to back that up, though I view my raw conversions at 100% while post processing.

My personal opinion is that the 18-400 is in a different league than the 16-300 though they are both nice lenses. Sharpness and image quality are very important to me because I do try to print to 12" x18" or greater.

I miss having the width of 16mm but the 18-400 is truly an all-in-one lens for what I like shooting (landscapes, butterflies, birds, etc). I sadly returned my loaner 18-400 VC to Tamron, however I have a personal copy on order.

I have a Tamron Tech Tip article with nature images through the 18-400mm VC which will come out in the Tamron eNewsletter in November. This features yet unseen images from a recent trip to Mexico.

I think most beginner and experienced users will enjoy both lenses. The bang for the buck seems good to me when versatility is important. If I can print to 16x20 at 300dpi and not see any "mush" I get excited.

I have more personal shots from taking the 18-400mm VC to Mexico and will try to post more high res samples soon to http://daveblinder.wordpress.com

Someone in a different thread recently tried to tell me all of my sample shots are soft. They must not understand that when I post a 100% crop wide open, I am showing everyone a worst-case scenario by intention.

Thanks for the detailed reply Dave'.

These superzooms keep on getting better and better. It'd be nice to have an all-in-one solution for those times you want to go fast and free (with just a single lens and no encumbrances). I'll have to keep this one in mind.

Many thanks for the info,

R2

While I utilize the superzooms often for versatility I still love my Canon EF-M 22 F/2 for the superb sharpness and pocketability.

I hope we see more 3rd party pancakes for all mounts.