Less expensive lenses

[EllaElla]

I am very new to photography. I shoot with a Nikon D3100. Was looking at a couple of Sigma and Tamron lenses. The 18-270mm or 18-200mm to be specific. I like the convenience of the lens. The Nikkor 18-200 is twice the money. I understand the image quality is not as good as Nikkor lenses. However, I am definitely not shooting professionally, and I am shooting with entry level gear. In your opinion, are these ok buys? Is there a preference between Sigma and Tamron? Should I be patient and wait until I can afford the more pricey glass? Appreciate your opinions. Thanks!

 

[jaomul]

I am not pro either but an entry level camera with a good lens can produce stunning photos. I have had cheaper lenses and would never buy one again, not that i am spending thousands either. I recommend you get 2 lenses to cover 18-200 rather than one. The tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good example of a relatively cheap start, there are others. Its a pain waiting and feels odd at first splashing out more for a lens than the camera, but good lenses are the way to go

 

[KenC]

The image quality of anything with that large a zoom range is not going to be as good as that of zooms with narrower ranges or prime lenses. Look at the images you are taking with whatever lens you have (kit lens, ca. 18-55 probably?) and see if there is a concentration of focal lengths for the good images. That will tell you what you really need. If you replace a kit lens with an 18-270 you may actually lose image quality. Better to keep using the kit lens and supplement it with something of better quality that will help you take better images. For example, if you frequently find yourself at the long end of the lens you have you might be better off getting a 70-200 zoom with good reviews (don't know if Sigma or Tamron makes one).

 

[usayit]

What you get from a zoom of that type of range is convenience and flexibility at the compromise of image quality.... many do-it-all product is a compromise of some sort. With that said, between the two mentioned, I would stick with the latest version of Tamron... the 18-270mm. Tamron's recent reputation has been built on these all-in-one wide range zooms.. sold mostly to the regular consumer market. They've been popular the introduction of the 28-200 many years ago. The reviews are favorable (for what it is) and each iteration seems to improve a little in image quality.

 

[EllaElla]

I understand what you all have said. But that's kinda why I asked. I know that the zoom lenses cut image quality. And I know that the same is said for the less quality lenses too. With that said, I can spend $400-500 on a Tamron 18-270mm. Or, $850 on a Nikon 18-200mm. Regardless I am compromising image quality, but for an untrained eye like mine, do you think I would notice?

 

[DiskoJoe]

I understand what you all have said. But that's kinda why I asked. I know that the zoom lenses cut image quality. And I know that the same is said for the less quality lenses too. With that said, I can spend $400-500 on a Tamron 18-270mm. Or, $850 on a Nikon 18-200mm. Regardless I am compromising image quality, but for an untrained eye like mine, do you think I would notice?

Start cheaper. I would not recommend either of those lenses unless you just want to do snap shot kind of photography. Good quality comes from good glass.

Start with something like one of these:

Pentax Yashica 50mm f1.9 M42 screw mount lens for Spotmatic etc. Nice Ex+! | eBay

 

[KmH]

I understand what you all have said. But that's kinda why I asked. I know that the zoom lenses cut image quality. And I know that the same is said for the less quality lenses too. With that said, I can spend $400-500 on a Tamron 18-270mm. Or, $850 on a Nikon 18-200mm. Regardless I am compromising image quality, but for an untrained eye like mine, do you think I would notice?

No. I don't think you would notice.

The Tamron 18-270 has a fairly good reputation though any zoon lens that has a 10x+ zoom range has to designed around an lengthy series of compromises.

Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO review: Digital Photography Review
Conclusion - Pros

• Remarkable 15x focal length range
• Impressive image quality in the normal to short telephoto range
• Excellent resistance to flare
• Effective vibration correction system, at least 3 stops benefit
• Reasonably compact despite the long telephoto range

Conclusion - Cons

• Slow and occasionally indecisive autofocus
• Geometric distortion across much of the zoom range
• Significant chromatic aberration at wideangle and telephoto (especially 270mm)
• Macro performance rather compromised (very soft at F6.3, focus shifts on stopping down)
• Uneven zoom action, zoom creep when not locked
• Slightly sub-par build quality

 

[morganza]

I understand what you all have said. But that's kinda why I asked. I know that the zoom lenses cut image quality. And I know that the same is said for the less quality lenses too. With that said, I can spend $400-500 on a Tamron 18-270mm. Or, $850 on a Nikon 18-200mm. Regardless I am compromising image quality, but for an untrained eye like mine, do you think I would notice?

No. I don't think you would notice.

The Tamron 18-270 has a fairly good reputation though any zoon lens that has a 10x+ zoom range has to designed around an lengthy series of compromises.

Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO review: Digital Photography Review
Conclusion - Pros

• Remarkable 15x focal length range
• Impressive image quality in the normal to short telephoto range
• Excellent resistance to flare
• Effective vibration correction system, at least 3 stops benefit
• Reasonably compact despite the long telephoto range

Conclusion - Cons

• Slow and occasionally indecisive autofocus
• Geometric distortion across much of the zoom range
• Significant chromatic aberration at wideangle and telephoto (especially 270mm)
• Macro performance rather compromised (very soft at F6.3, focus shifts on stopping down)
• Uneven zoom action, zoom creep when not locked
• Slightly sub-par build quality

Wow, this is quite good. Thanks!

 

[sovietdoc]

Get nikon's 18-300. Yes, it costs more than your camera, but you will never need another lens for your kind of shooting.

 

[EllaElla]

Thank you all for the advice! Still not sure what I want to do. I think I'd like to find someone who has one of these lenses and see how it looks. That new Nikon 18-300 sure seems like a beast! But I'd be a little skeptical with that price tag. I would have expected that lens to cost way more than a thousand. Anyhow, thanks again everyone!

 

[MonicaBH]

I have two Tamron lenses for my D90; at some point, I'd like to have the Nikkor equivalents, but the Tamrons fit the bill quite nicely at 1/3 the cost. I have the 17-50 f/2.8 & the 28-75 f/2.8; my 70-300 variable aperture is a Sigma that is also fine for what I need.

 

[Solarflare]

[...] That new Nikon 18-300 sure seems like a beast! But I'd be a little skeptical with that price tag. I would have expected that lens to cost way more than a thousand. Anyhow, thanks again everyone!

Hu, why would it cost even more ? Increasing the zoom range isnt that expensive. It just increases the cost you have in respect to loss in picture quality.

 

[gsgary]

I wouldnt touch the 18-300 with a bardge pole

 

[usayit]

Hu, why would it cost even more ? Increasing the zoom range isnt that expensive. It just increases the cost you have in respect to loss in picture quality.

The Nikon 18-300 is almost twice the price of the Tamron 18-270

 

[Solarflare]

He was comparing the 18-300mm to the 18-200mm, both Nikon.

And that the Tamron glass and the corresponding Nikon glass are 1:2 in respect to price is normal.