Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Tamron 16-300 & 18-400 Lens Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2018
- My completely non-professional review of the Tamron 16-300 and 18-400 lenses.
The test photos can be seen on my websites photo gallery.
jtice.smugmug.com/Electronics...
www.jtice.com
The AF sound is what I needed to know. Thanks for the video (love the sound track at the end)!!!
Exactly what I was looking for. No sales pitch, no trying to appease anyone. Just an honest real world experience. I was actually looking at the 18-400 pretty hard, but think I'll reset my search. Thanks so much for the review.
This is exactly the info I was looking for! Good stuff. Thank you!!
John, thanks for the video. The focus noise info was exactly what I was looking for, since I was hoping this could replace my Canon 18-135 STM.
Thanks! Exactly the comparison I was looking for!
thank you for this helpful review ☺️📸
Hope i could buy one in the future
Thanks for the review. I've own many Tamron zooms and they do make these almost irritating noises when focusing and when the VC is doing it's thing. I also notice the zoom rings do stiffen up in the middle zoom range when turning and all the zooms does that.
Told me all of what I needed to know! Thanks!!!!
I must say that even though I have and have used the Tamron 18 to 400 zoom, it’s like you are reviewing a different lens. I have none of the sharpness issues you have described. It is sharp from wide open down to F16. No issues with edge sharpness. I did the same movie test you did with your 16 to 300. Mine was quiet with just a hind of noise, nothing like you had. It is way quieter than my older Sigma 18 to 250. Any noise would likely be drowned out by ambient noise. Maybe mine being fairly new has the newest firmware upgrade. I use a Canon 80D.
👏👏👏 Thanks for a very good and honest review. You helped me out not buying the 18-400. I already own the 16-300 so now I feel better for it 😄
ME TOO!
Well check some other revues from more experienced photographers before making an opinion Like Ken Wheeler (the angry photographer) personally own the same lens & do not have any of the issues that he mentioned with mine & It's the best lens for me at this point in my life.
Sorry, I'd to ask you about the wear of this lens until now, what do you think?
Nice review mate
Thanks man, very helpful.
Wow. Thank you for the review. It was extremely thorough.
I was curious as I purchased the 16-300 also. You have confirmed that due to the lens design, the sharpness is reduced below f8. I thought there was a defect in my lens.
I purchased the Tamron as I misplaced my Nikon 18-200. I definitely noticed more sharpness in my 18-200 in all f ranges.
I’m thinking of buying one of these lenses for my Nikon camera. It has great reviews. Since it’s over a year old, is there any newer lens you would recommend with about the same price/features?
Just stumble upon this video. I own the 18-400mm I find it very useful. Here are couple of notes to the late arrivals like me. If I'm not mistaken, both lenses are APS-C lenses, that mean that the effective cropped frame is much tighter compare to the full frame. for instance the equivalent of 300mm full frame Canon is actually 480mm in cropped frame and the 400mm full frame Canon is actually 640mm in cropped frame camera. That difference grow even bigger if you use a doubler.
Thanks for sharing the focus noise of these lens. Not an issue of course for photos, but for video, that's not good. Thanks for sharing that. That's something that Tamron needs to address.
Great video
Informative . I subscribed just bcz of ur attitude of saying ( u know the drill haha )
John how's the picture quality at max focal lenght of the 16-300? I do have a 70-300 ( not stabilized, but i do use trypod) and I have the canon 77D aswell....I'm not having sharpened pictures. I really don't know what's wrong, it's the kind of lens? Shall i take a sigma 18-300? The tamron 18-400? My 18-135 or 50 mm are not having me sharpening issues. My tamron at max zoom are not sharped pictures, are at with a few step less.
And fun part of the story is...my bridge superzoom camera is giving better sharpening pictures at same focal lenght
Yes John. The bridge has 15 lens inside and it's probably what you said, it's a nikon b700,with a 4:3 256 mm equivalent of the 35 mm 24-1440. I love hikings too, i went in the Arizona desert and National Parks and the bridge gave me great pictures which some i also Made canvas 60x80, not bad for a 1.2/3 sensor, uh?
Anyway about the tamron, made the shot with both devices at f 5.6 to get more light because was very cloudy but....hell so horrible pictures.
Bridge first shot. Fine very ok!
Dslr, tryes over tryes....and for what?
-one with a traffic sign, even if everything behind is blurry, the sign is not si sharp
- the other is a mirror sign for the traffic, and right behind it has brushes...neither the brushes with foliage and neither the mirror sign are sharp.
Hell of photography was getting so frustrating i was holding my bridge and s7 edge on side for low light indoor pictures
Just a question John for the 16-300: once you do turn off the settings about the lens in the camera, does the chromatic abberation is fixed also in automatic modes? A, P, T, S and automatic?
Imagine that i do meet a stranger and: ehy Will you take a picture of me?
Off corse i will set the camera for him in Auto.
No issue for this in 18 400?
Thanks. On Amazon on my country, actually the 18-400 has just 50 bucks difference against the 16 300
i have the same issue you can send the lens to tamron and they do a software update to turn off the chromatic abberation
Thanks for the video.
Maybe have both efs 55-250mm IS and ef 70-300mm IS backwards compatible full frame...even if better one 10-24mm 24-70mm or 24-105 mm and efs 16-300 or 18-400 ( less lenses to carry you save time but give up image quality like f2 f2.8 f8 f11 for low light night shots).
You can have any combo these as they compatible...full frame vs apsc.
16-300mm, I can use it for a basketball/sports game, thank you
Oh, thanx!
Agree. I wanted to like the 18-400 for fantastic focal range, but IQ just wasn’t there - especially at 400mm unless you had ideal light for F8, 1/800th. I literally got better quality from my Canon 55-250 STM @ 250mm and cropping to same size as 400mm. Stabilization on 18-400 is lousy compared with anything I’ve used by Canon. Just couldn’t justify the weight of 18-400. Better off with lighter Canon 18-135 for walk-around. Even better: 55-250 STM and throw a 24mm prime pancake in my pocket in case I need wider. No experience with the 16-300.
Well I disagree with you sir... I 've purchased that lens & shoot it with my Nikon D7200 a 24-3 mega pixel Crop sensor Without the AA filter this very sharp resolution & sharpness hasn't been an issue from corners to centre & the build quality is superb since mine fell of the bag onto a cobble stone sidewalk shattering the protection filter attache to the lens & other than the filter nothing got damage. Blew of the small glass particle wide down the lens put another protection filter on & shot few test pictures to access any damege & there were none... Perhaps you should have use Tamron tap console to adjust the lens to your Canon Camera I did not have to do that to mine at all. Still enjoying going oi=ut wit only one body one lens & being able to shoot from sunriseto sunset & all the birds & wildlife I can during the day all of them sharp as nail when I use the proper AFsettings.
Still going good?
18-400 nice focus to 300, soft at 400.
An old geezer here. Any ultra-super zoom has gone past the point of diminishing returns in terms of a "travel Lens". These lenses are just too big and bulky to be useful not to mention the lessor image quality. For travel you are better off taking 3 kit lenses. If you are on a once in a life time trip it just makes sense to have better glass. Is it really that hard to change a lens ? For an out of town trip I'll take and 18-55mm 70-300mm and a 10-20mm lens kit. I know these lenses and I know I will get better results. This is not to say that super zooms don't have their place. I use a 28-300mm for photographing events that I get paid for.
Wait what? There is minimal difference between 300 and 400 mm, but the 16 is much wider than the 18??? What am I missing?
The mm number on lens is not liner. So 10mm change at one end is not the same as a 10mm change at the other end. In real world use, I found the 16mm a more useful difference from 18mm, than I did the 400mm vs the 300mm. Plus the shortcomings I found in the 18 to 400mm made it an easy decision for me.
The word is linear, not liner. And, you're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 📷
The best review I’ve seen on these two lenses, thank you.
I think I’ll stick with my Canon lenses.
I have the 55-200mm and the tamron 70-300mm
Tamron has better contrast
16-300 is only apsc. The 18-400mm with adapter with setting change to 1.6x crop on canon r and can calibrate/update with tamron tapin accessory. These two general use travel all in one lenses..acceptable f8 plus images and video but others lenses better sharper and for fast action or low light like prime ef 50mm f1.8 is stm(f1.4 with speedbooster on m50).
What kind of photographer are you Photographers do not use Auto.
He wouldn't be using auto as he recommended f8. See the full review. He used auto to test its perf in auto
A shitty one.o