Best DX Superzoom

[JohnNewman]

Hi all

I posted here about a year ago when I was in the process of moving to a Nikon outfit (a move I don't regret). I was wondering at the time about getting a Nikon 18-200 but opted for the kit 18-105 which turned out to be a remarkably good lens for the price. I've since added a 10-24 and 70-300 tele, all of which I'm very pleased with.

However, I still like the idea of a walk-around lens for the times when I don't want to carry the whole kitbag with me and am considering either the Nikon 18-200 or a Tamron 18-270 (either the older version or the newer one). I've seen some pretty horrendous stories about the new one (mainly related to the Piezo drive) and was wondering what Nikon users' thoughts were. I know the Nikon will be better built but reviews seem to say that IQ is very comparable between the Nikon and the Tamrons.

Price-wise the older Tamron seems good value and I'm leaning towards that but would welcome any thoughts. As I said in my earlier post, I know that there are always compromises with these lenses but I have my other kit when I need it (and will be adding a 35mm f1.8 soon as well)- just don't want to always have to carry everything around all the time.

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Thanks

John

 

[ianbrother]

18-200 nikkor is a heavy lens but a great walkaround if you are not after high quality pictures

lots of distortion on both the wide and zoom ends but tolerable if your not that nitpicky about it

 

[Lloyd]

M_Driscoll (Matt), who is one of the most active posters here on the Nikon forum, routinely uses the new 28-300 with his D7000, and has posted some impressive examples of what the pairing can do. He has stated that as a travel kit, it works perfectly, and he doesn't feel a need for anything else. Keep in mind that Matt has pro-level gear (Nikon and Leica), including a couple of the Super-Tele's, so he certainly has a good basis for comparison.

 

[DonWeston]

John - Welcome, a bit belated. Don't know if the issue has been dealt with yet, but since I own both the D7000 and the two superzooms, 18-200 and later the 28-300VR, I might be able to comment here. I use both lenses at different times. Usually if I am just carrying a camera, which is all the time, but not specifically intending to go and shoot anything, I will just keep the 18-200VR on the body. It is lighter significantly of the two options and gives a more balanced shooting range. 99% of subjects can be dealt with, with just this lens. If on the other hand I am going out to shoot something that requires a longet lens but I still want to not carry more then two lenses, the I carry the 28-300VR. It is most likely a tad sharper especially over and around 200+. My other alternative if I am leaving the country and don't want to carry but two lenses, then a 10-24 and 28-300 covers it all, maybe with a 35mm prime thrown in... A lighter package would be 16-85 and 70-300 if I want both VR lenses. The sharpness and results are all equivalent, most is up to me. The downfall of images is not the gear but this shooter. Any of this suffices fine, as long as you don't have more specific demands, like prints larger then 24x36. I feel that even then the gear might be up to it. Pushing 60, I certainly don't want to carry much more PRO gear then this. Hope this helps.. Don

 

[DonWeston]

Here are two example with the 18-200VR but on my D300 followed by an image with the 28-300VR on the D7000...fwiw.