Hi all... I’m looking to buy a new lens, I currently have a Nikon D3400 with kit lens. Iv been shooting A bit of everything apart from wildlife and sports. I was recommended the Tamron 18-270 mm however I feel this is more wildlife and sports correct me if I’m wrong. I’m new and still very much learning so any information would be a great help
Lens upgrade for D3400
- Thread Starter tilly
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 4,157
- Reaction score
- 6,033
- Location
- NV
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Hello, is it the 18-55 kit lens you currently have? What kinds of shots has your current lens been a limitation? Do you need a function your lens cannot accomplish, like longer zoom?
What is your budget?
I ask because if you have a specific goal for your new lens, you will be happier with your purchase, and the experts here can give you better recommendations.
What is your budget?
I ask because if you have a specific goal for your new lens, you will be happier with your purchase, and the experts here can give you better recommendations.
nerwin
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 4,283
- Reaction score
- 3,005
- Location
- Vermont
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Never been a huge fan of all in one zoom lenses.
I'd consider the 70-300 to be better suited for wildlife photos than the Tammy 18-270.
There is nothing wrong with Nikon's current 18-55 VR kit lens. It's quite good for what it is. If the range is TOO short for you, they do make a 18-140 VR that is pretty decent. Maybe that's something you'd prefer. But for wildlife, the 70-300 AF-S VR or the new AF-P model is very good. Tamron also makes a good 70-300 VC.
However, you failed to mention a budget. So it's kind of hard to give you a recommendation without knowing your budget.
I'd consider the 70-300 to be better suited for wildlife photos than the Tammy 18-270.
There is nothing wrong with Nikon's current 18-55 VR kit lens. It's quite good for what it is. If the range is TOO short for you, they do make a 18-140 VR that is pretty decent. Maybe that's something you'd prefer. But for wildlife, the 70-300 AF-S VR or the new AF-P model is very good. Tamron also makes a good 70-300 VC.
However, you failed to mention a budget. So it's kind of hard to give you a recommendation without knowing your budget.
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #4
Yes I have the kit lens. My limitations have been with taking close up they are as sharp as I’d like them to be. I’ve been looking at the Nikon 50mm and the 35mm. I feel I don’t need a zoom lens at the moment. My budget is about £200 at a push maybe £300
Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #5
All sorry I meant I don’t take wildlife or sports photography. However I’m interested in street, landscape, some portraits and some close ups e.g of a coin with a good dof. This is where I feel my current lens (18-55m)
Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,944
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
The triple-extension lens barrel design is a thing that Tamron literally __invented__ when they made the first-ever 28-200mm AKA "superzoom" lens, a little over two decades ago in the early 1990's. Tamron worked on iterating the 28-200 for over a decade, and now, in the digital era, has moved into the extreme superzoom for digital SLR phase. So, the company has vast experience in creating superzooms, which have the wide range of focal lengths that many people want for convenience, and for a one-lens-does-it-all carrying solution.
I've owned an earlier version of a wide-range Tamron superzoom and the Nikon-made second version of the 28-200 superzoom; there are multiple other lenses in this category. This type of lens has a long telephoto end AND a fairly wide-angle short end (18mm), and is a one-lens solution for day trips, photo walks, vacations, etc..
Does this lens deliver the best image quality possible today, at every focal length? NO, it does not. Buuuuuut...it's plenty good for a lot of uses, and at f/8 in good light, it's probably as sharp across 80 percent of the width of the APS-C frame area as are lenses costing five times as much. Remember, diffraction due to small lens aperture widths (like f/5.6 to f/11) tends to take the finest details off of most lenses. For many uses in today's world, it will be literally impossible to tell if a picture was shot with an 18-270 or an expensive lens costing $2,499 or more. On the web? On Facebook? Any lens is plenty good!
The drawbacks of the 18-270 are physical size/length/weight, but the lens is not "that big", relatively speaking. Smaller lenses,like 18-55 and 55-200, and 18-135mm or 18-140 with VR in Nikon, are easier to carry, but not by a huge amount.
ac12
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Messages
- 2,640
- Reaction score
- 914
- Location
- SF Bay Area, California, USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
When you do close up, like of a coin, you get very LITTLE depth of field.
That is just the nature of close up photography.
A caution about the super-zooms.
I have the Nikon 18-140, and there are times when I feel the lens is too heavy. Like when shooting a family party.
That is just the nature of close up photography.
A caution about the super-zooms.
I have the Nikon 18-140, and there are times when I feel the lens is too heavy. Like when shooting a family party.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32929-22e23acc63d6ecb25e5ee941be87121f.jpg?1734162700)
