Nikon 70-300mm vs Tamron 18-270?

[iroc409]

Soooo... I am thinking about getting a new lens for my camera. I have a Nikon D80. I have a 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, and a f3.5-5.6 (I think) 18-135 lens. The 35 isn't going anywhere, it's a nice lens.

However, we do a lot of road trips, sightseeing, and that sort of thing (including wildlife at Natl Parks), and I would like to have something with more reach. I'm also not totally happy with the 18-135, as while it is pretty sharp, it has a lot of distortion (mostly pincushioning). I used to have the 55-200 VR, but it's image quality isn't much better than the 18-55 kit lens (the 18-135 is much better).

I was looking at getting the 70-300 from Nikon, as it is reasonably priced and would give me a lot of extra zoom. It's supposed to be a pretty good lens, with a price that is hard to beat. The down side of course, I wouldn't be replacing my 18-135 and I'd be stuck changing lenses. I don't mind that so much, but it is nice not to have to do that on vacation. An option would be to get the 70-300, and eventually saving for something like the Tamron 17-50 or Nikon 17-55.

The other lens as the title states, is the Tamron 18-270. It looks like there are two versions, one with a piezo focus motor, and an older version without. I would probably be looking at the newer model. This lens would pretty much be a do-all lens. My dad got this lens for Christmas, along with a D7000 camera. His pictures are stunning. Though I haven't scrutinized them for errors, it sounds like there is some distortion in some ranges. I don't know how much his pictures are attributed to the camera, and which ones the lens. They are super sharp and very colorful. It's probably a combination. He's been into photography since he was in high school, and used to have his own color dark room. He's quite talented, though not a pro (and doesn't do it as much as he used to). If he's pleased, it's probably good enough for me.

The Tamron is a little shorter, but it seems like it would be more suited to what I want. Which should I get?

 

[HHunt]

I haven't used either lens, but generally speaking: Don't worry about 270 vs 300 mm, that's not a difference you'll really notice. A 70-300 will typically be better in that range than an 18-300, though ... tacking the wide end onto it makes for some compromises. There's a review of the Tamron here, which basically says what I'd expect: Convenient, often good, some issues.

Also, I found the 18-55 to be notably sharper and more contrasty than the 55-200, at least stopped down a bit?

 

[iroc409]

I don't have the 18-55 anymore, but at the time I was running a D40 so it could be any number of things I suppose. I just remember a pretty big difference going to the 18-135, and that was the same time I went to the D80. I don't know that I used the 18-55 on the D80.

So do you think the 18-270's utility outweighs the cons? Around the house and "creative" shooting and so forth I can get away with my prime lens, but with vacation pictures it would be nice to have an all-in-one. I suppose though, for the MOST part, I'm going to know if I want a shorter or longer lens, but there are plenty of occasions I've not wanted to carry a second lens and it seems inevitable that is the time I want the other lens.

The 70-300 gets pretty good reviews, and it costs less. Also, being a Nikkor, it certainly has its draw there.

 

[unrlmth]

The Nikon AFS 70-300 is a very good lens and compares quite favorably to many of the more expensive telephoto zooms. Personally I would get the Tamron 17-50 non BIM version before the others. When I was shooting DX is was my most used lens.

I've owned both the 17-50 and the 70-300 and IMO, would make a very good travel kit.

 

[madFive]

I have the Nikkor 70-300mm in question, and it's a great wildlife lens - you can get some really amazing shots taking that thing to the zoo.

I don't have any experience w/ the Tamron 18-270mm but in general I would recommend avoiding any lenses with a zoom range that wide. To make a lens with a range that extensive, lens-makers tend to have to make a lot of compromises, and it probably has a lot of distortion and lack of sharpness on both ends of its range.

In general, the best zoom lenses are the ones that just cover a very narrow range (ie, 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200, etc) and the rule holds true for the opposite. If at all possible, I'd stick with the better quality glass, and just get used to switching lenses when needed.

 

[iroc409]

OK, well I think that pretty much settles it. I will probably plan to get the Nikon then, and save up for a better close range.

What is the BIM you are referring to on the Tamron 17-50? I didn't realize there were different versions.