Tamron's New 16-300mm

Hi again,

Is it true this les is available or will be available soon? It is not that great optically but the zoom range is really big, so wit this lens and another tamron 150-600mm someone can cover everything.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=8nGwEZM_Zy8

Tareq wrote in post #17180644
Hi again,

Is it true this les is available or will be available soon? It is not that great optically but the zoom range is really big, so wit this lens and another tamron 150-600mm someone can cover everything.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=8nGwEZM_Zy8

It's available now.

It's a lens of pure convenience.

To me, it's pointless. It's not a high quality lens. It's a convenient lens, as it gives you wide angle to telephoto but only on APS-C. So you're combining the lesser sensor of APS-C and the lesser quality of a `super zoom' lens into the system. The reason I think it's pointless is because if you just want this kind of setup with a single lens that covers that range, it just seems to me that dSLR isn't the right system for that person. Why spend $1k on this lens and an APS-C camera, just to do the same thing at the end of the day as a good 4/3rd system (or other, like the super zoom P&S's) that doesn't have a lens to change out but covers the ranges and is basically producing similar image quality?

SLR isn't the answer for all things photography. And really, if looking to never have to change lenses, there are other systems out there.

Very best,

Mal, common argument. It is hard to get an equivalent range and f stop in a point and shoot for travelling. Additonally, for many, its not the only lens they use. for example, this combo with a fast prime (say a 30 or 50 1.4 lens) may provide for an excellent travel combo for some. This still provides for great image quality for monitor display, 5x7 or even 8x10 prints.
that much said, for me the limit of comprimize would be something like the 18-135 stm.

kevindar wrote in post #17182065
Mal, common argument. It is hard to get an equivalent range and f stop in a point and shoot for travelling. Additonally, for many, its not the only lens they use. for example, this combo with a fast prime (say a 30 or 50 1.4 lens) may provide for an excellent travel combo for some. This still provides for great image quality for monitor display, 5x7 or even 8x10 prints.
that much said, for me the limit of comprimize would be something like the 18-135 stm.

Exactly. For me, for instance, I don't want a 4/3 system. I already have a full DSLR system. But when I don't know what I'm going to shoot or want to go light my sig18-250 + 10-22 covers a huge range with a decent camera and quite decent IQ. I've made very reasonable 16" prints from the 18-250 - at least good enough to hand beside ones made with the 5DIII + TS-E 17 (yes, it needs some extra care in removing CA and sharpening). Of course that was a $250 lens, so it seemed like a good thing to try. Having used it though, I could see myself upgrading to a different superzoom if it were substantially better (faster AF would be really nice).

It was also one of the last lenses I got - not the first or only. Looks like the OP already has quite the collection.

If it's going to be your only lens I can see how you may well be better off with a different system. But I have to say I'm much more of a superzoom fan since actually getting one. Not that I'd take it out at sunrise/sunset when I know I'm going to shoot landscapes or anything. But for instance last time I was in Yellowstone I took the sig + 10-22 out during the day when the weather is not great (like full sun). I figure I'm not going to get the best shots, but still want to take photos and don't know if I want wide for landscape or tele for wildlife.

Here's one I took with the sig that you can look at full res (although the flickr compression reduces IQ quite a bit).

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/n5Wh​WP

MalVeauX wrote in post #17181637
It's available now.

It's a lens of pure convenience.

To me, it's pointless. It's not a high quality lens. It's a convenient lens, as it gives you wide angle to telephoto but only on APS-C. So you're combining the lesser sensor of APS-C and the lesser quality of a `super zoom' lens into the system. The reason I think it's pointless is because if you just want this kind of setup with a single lens that covers that range, it just seems to me that dSLR isn't the right system for that person. Why spend $1k on this lens and an APS-C camera, just to do the same thing at the end of the day as a good 4/3rd system (or other, like the super zoom P&S's) that doesn't have a lens to change out but covers the ranges and is basically producing similar image quality?

SLR isn't the answer for all things photography. And really, if looking to never have to change lenses, there are other systems out there.

Very best,

100% agree !

ejenner wrote in post #17182259
Here's one I took with the sig that you can look at full res (although the flickr compression reduces IQ quite a bit).

http:// …https://flic.kr/p/n5Wh​WPDeam Lake, RMNP by Edward Jenner2010, on Flickr

Compressed at this point i call it > "FlickR Destroy it" ... unless the lens also was not good too

Well, if i will buy a lens then i will go with Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm, this is the range i want to use more with a zoom lens as most primes in that range are galaxies expensive, so i will not think about UWA-standard range with this zoom anyway, i am covered from say 16mm up to 200mm with high quality zooms, so no way i will replace them all to have this Tamron one.

But, with this lens, i may think about it as a gift for my kids to use it on their DSLR so they don't need many zooms or lenses to use and change, this will serve them fine as long they can handle the weight, and i think my kids are more to wide side shooting than long ones.

It would be better to get something like the sx60hs instead of that lens, it would be more versatile I would think and possibly get better pics. Nothing like a 20-1300 35mm equivalent,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17181637
To me, it's pointless. It's not a high quality lens.

Says whom?

Here is a recent photo with version 1 of the Tamron 18-270mm VC on my used and abused 7D. I have not used the 16-300mm VC yet, but would image IQ has increased.

davebreal wrote in post #17183160
Says whom?

Here is a recent photo with version 1 of the Tamron 18-270mm VC on my used and abused 7D. I have not used the 16-300mm VC yet, but would image IQ has increased.

That just proves the point. F13 on this lens, resulting in that image, proves it's not optically any better than any old lens out there. There's nothing that the image has that this lens really was able to do, that a cheap $50 kit lens can't do right there.

Not knocking the image. But the point is, the image doesn't show any sort of argument for the Tamron, other than convenient focal range.

All of these zooms are acceptable optically, stopped down to F11 or more, for most things. But their color, micro-contrast, corner sharpness, etc, are not great. It's an average lens, and that's being generous. It just has a really big focal range. That's it's only selling point honestly.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17183277
There's nothing that the image has that this lens really was able to do, that a cheap $50 kit lens can't do right there.

Are you expecting the lens to breathe fire and take flight (like a dragon would)?

It's a camera lens, they focus available light and transmit that information to the sensor over a spec'd focal length. They generally lack bells and whistles like an incorporated beer bottle opener.

I'm all for something like a beer bottle opener tab though.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17183277
But the point is, the image doesn't show any sort of argument for the Tamron, other than convenient focal range.

Show me the argument against a superzoom when the lens seller hits a good price point and my resultant photos have gone on exhibit and been used in my seminars.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17183277
That just proves the point. F13 on this lens, resulting in that image, proves it's not optically any better than any old lens out there.

davebreal wrote in post #17183406
Are you expecting the lens to breathe fire and take flight (like a dragon would)?

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. However, if you're going to make grandiose claims (i.e, that it is a 'high quality lens') then you really should be able to come up with something to back up those claims. That image doesn't.

davebreal wrote in post #17183417
Show me the argument against a superzoom when the lens seller hits a good price point and my resultant photos have gone on exhibit and been used in my seminars..

.....

I will also note that this lens is MORE than capable of post-processed amateur tone-mapping looks. However, I ventured off the path of amateur techniques a few years ago.

Heya,

Again, nothing here is really making an argument for that lens. It doesn't matter if you print them and put them in exhibits or seminars. Great for you. Very happy for you. Congrats. But a kit lens, again, does the same thing for way less. The 18-55 STM is optically great. The 16-300 is obviously decent enough for wide focal length shooting, stopped down. But you're not making any cases for this lens at it's longer focal lengths, wide open. You're not showing the performance of this lens in it's totality. You're just showing some wider angle, stopped down images, which of course will ANY old glass will look good enough with. So this is again not an argument for the 16-300 as a great lens. It's not high quality. Nothing against you personally. Just keeping it in context.

As for your commentary about `amateur' techniques, that's just typical elitist disrespectful notion and immature. Those amateur techniques are hanging in the Smithsonian.

Anyhow, clearly this argument isn't going any where. There's no `internet cred' to spread here, which is immature, and it's not helpful in terms of what this lens is or can do.

Very best,

Honestly speaking, this lens is more versatile than say Sigma or those 3rd party lens of 18-200 or 28-300 or xx-250mm, and i am sure this lens is more aimed for beginners and travel shooters with smaller gear and not pro/advanced gear, I can imagine many would like to use this lens a lot for travel shooting from wide to long by one lens.

Sigma/Canon 10-2x lenses are optically better but they are not very fast lenses either, same with Canon 100-400, those lenses are for daylight and available light or long exposures, i am sure if i have this lens for long exposure and stopping down then i will have many shots or same shots amount as using Canon 16-35 and 24-70 and 70-200 all together, but i know once i want fast lens and fast AF tracking then lens is out of my choice.

Sorry for the previous harsh words guys.

The SP lens designation is what their company considers their premium line and hence the higher pricing.