Which superzoom? (Nikon fit)

Llamaman

Llamaman

Proud Addick
Messages
7,422
Name
Not an addick!
Edit My Images
Yes
Background
I currently have a D5000 and the Nikkor 18-105VR, 70-300VR and 35mm lenses. When travelling, I find taking all 3 lenses too heavy and bulky (especially if only taking hand luggage!) so tend to take the 18-105 and 35 and leave the longer zoom at home. Inevitably, I sometimes find the 105 too short and am thinking of getting a superzoom for when travelling light.
I'll probably keep the 18-105 for better IQ on the occasions when I can carry the 18-105 and the 70-300 (I'd like to upgrade the 18-105 to a 16-85 one day), so I don't mind losing some IQ in the superzoom to gain some convenience.

The quandary
Which lens to get? My choices seem to be;
Nikon 18-200 VR
Sigma 18-200 OS
Tamron 18-270 VC

I've seen the question asked on a few forums and most recommend the Nikon - but this usually seems to be based on the brand rather than a direct comparison of the lenses in question. Has anyone had experience of using 2 or more of these lenses?

Also, I understand that the Nikon is faster at its max focal length (5.6 rather than 6.3) than the Tamron but does anyone know what the Tamron is at 200mm?
 
If it were me I'd go for the Tamron. The reason being that you acknowledge that any of these are going to be an IQ compromise and you're after something versatile. There is nothing more versatile than the 18-270. IQ wise, the Nikon seems to get better reviews but then none of them are going to be amazing, that's the price you pay for versatility.

Only other one to consider might be the the Nikon 28-300 though it is more money than any of the above and a pretty heavy lump which may defeat the point.
 
I'm not sure, but i think one of the magazines did i group test on these lenses, and i'm pretty sure the Nikon came out best. I would pay the extra and go for the VR MKii as it is identical but has a lock to stop lens creep, and i believe the VRii is better than the original VR used on the MK1,?
 
wilko said:
I'm not sure, but i think one of the magazines did i group test on these lenses, and i'm pretty sure the Nikon came out best. I would pay the extra and go for the VR MKii as it is identical but has a lock to stop lens creep, and i believe the VRii is better than the original VR used on the MK1,?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, bot have the VR2 system, which leads to some Mark1 being sold as VR2 to people who think they're getting a Mark2. The way to tell is the zoom lock and "Vr2" being in gold lettering on the Mark2.
 
gad-westy said:
Only other one to consider might be the the Nikon 28-300 though it is more money than any of the above and a pretty heavy lump which may defeat the point.
Click to expand...
I'm also not sure I'd want to lose the 18-28 focal range for wide shots, as I'm on a crop sensor body.
 
Llamaman said:
I'm also not sure I'd want to lose the 18-28 focal range for wide shots, as I'm on a crop sensor body.
Click to expand...

In that case (and bear in mind I know nothing about the Sigma) it's a choice between marginally better IQ of the Nikon (and better build by the sound of it) or the more useful range of the Tamron. For me I'd still prefer the range for a walkabout but I don't know how much trade off there is in IQ. The last thing you want is all your photos being soft. I'm not much help am I? :lol:
 
I have a D5000 and use a Nikon 18-200mm. I changed to the lens from the kit 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR as I got fed up of changing lenses constantly. I done the travelling thing last summer with the interchangeable lenses and quickly grew fed up of changing every few minutes.

Nikon 18-200VR I

Zoom creep does exist but not nearly as bad as I anticipated and only when it is already partially zoomed out, at 18mm it is fine with no zoom creep at all which defeats the zoom lock of the VRII. Also the VRI does have VrII technology bu it is not the same as the VRII version, more stops recovered with the VRII version (Ken Rockwell explains it).

The IQ really does not differ to me, in fact it is perhaps better across the shorter range. It is a one lens does all but it is not a compromise in the way that your images will look awful.

I would pick up the Nikon over the others without doubt, I got mine second hand and got lucky with the quality of it. You will struggle to find VR I retail now only available second hand.
 
Just discovered that the Sigma is now 18-250, making it more attractive.

The reviews on DPReview prefer the Sigma's AF, distortion and handling, and the Tamron's sharpness.

Decisions, decisions...
 
When I was after a 'do-it-all' lens to take abroad a couple of years ago, the Sigma came slightly ahead of the Nikkor 18-200 VR in a What Camera test of superzooms... The only downside is that it's slower at the long end.

I've been pretty pleased with mine (when I can only take the ONE lens)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top