Hi I was looking at adding some more versatility to my D500 for which I only own the 200-500.
I was entertaining the idea of one of these three lenses. The 18-300 I'm referring to is the more expensive 9 bladed version (I was confused at first when I saw BH listed 2).
All three lenses have pretty good reviews as far as IQ (all get 4.5/5 reviews on BH), but what I want to know is how is the AF performance. I'd be using the lenses occasionally for birding/wildlife. For example these would be useful for whale watching where the 200mm minimum FL of the 200-500 can often be restricting, especially on crop. On FF I often need to zoom out to 70mm or less.
Would these have AF speed comparable to the 200-500 which is not superfast itself. If they were in the ball park that would do me.
Which of those 2 Nikon's would you choose if any or would you grab the Tammy for the extra reach, assuming 300-400mm is good.
90 5.0 wrote:
So on ff if you have to zoom out to 70, and you already have a 200-500, why not something like the 17-55 2.8 vr? Would be worlds better imo.
But I need to be able to also zoom in. I'm not really after a dedicated WA lens for my D500, I have that all covered on my FF cameras. I was thinking something that would be useful as a go anywhere lens that is relatively compact by 200-500 standards, but could do some birding if called upon, but some much wider stuff too.
When I'm whale watching, I'm often needing 500mm for the whales and birds, but then you can get close to the whales, and 50mm would be more appropriate, same with dolphins as they get right under the boat and alongside. So an 18-400 would be extremely useful if the quality and AF speed is pretty good.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But I need to be able to also zoom in. I'm not really after a dedicated WA lens for my D500, I have that all covered on my FF cameras. I was thinking something that would be useful as a go anywhere lens that is relatively compact by 200-500 standards, but could do some birding if called upon, but some much wider stuff too.
When I'm whale watching, I'm often needing 500mm for the whales and birds, but then you can get close to the whales, and 50mm would be more appropriate, same with dolphins as they get right under the boat and alongside. So an 18-400 would be extremely useful if the quality and AF speed is pretty good....Show more →
Oh so you aren’t going to take the 200-500 too?
18-400, I’ve never looked at samples, but I can’t imagine the image quality would be up to par from the 200-500.
In your case I’d bring a 80-400, it’s not the greatest but I’m sure it beats the hell out of the 18-400.
Out of my lenses, in your case I would bring my 80-400 no questions asked it 70-80 is about as wide as your gonna shoot. Or the 18-55vr and the 200-500 and just deal with it
90 5.0 wrote:
So on ff if you have to zoom out to 70, and you already have a 200-500, why not something like the 17-55 2.8 vr? Would be worlds better imo.
There is no 17-55 2.8 vr ?
You probably refer to the AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 DX. It doesnt have VR.
90 5.0 wrote:
18-400, I’ve never looked at samples, but I can’t imagine the image quality would be up to par from the 200-500.
So much is very obvious. The Tamron 18-400 is great for what it is, but its still a superzoom.
I would have to agree with the "Monkey" on this that any super zoom is nothing but a compromise, especially on D500.
In my opinion you might as well sell the D500 and buy a D5300(+) and use the extra money to get a quality 70(80)-200mm f/2.8 and maybe the 17-55mm that was brought up. Now you've got something.
Nikon 16-80 or Sigma 17-70 would work great on D500 (or D5300-5500). All superzooms would compromise final results. I knew several people that use a Tamron 16-300 on Nikon bodies, and while it is very convenient for the travel the results were just OK (good enough for slide show or albums).
But again, you need to try and find what is working for you...
I owned the Nikon 18-300 and would never recommend it. IQ all over the place according to focal length and aperture. AF was only okay. Even for a casual walk around lens, I was very disappointed with it.
I hear you loud and clear. When I'm out hiking or doing street photography I no longer want to be a mule and pack a bunch of lenses. Add to that all the times photos are missed because you don't have the correct lens on led me to explore the high range zooms.
I eventually purchased and regularly use a Tamron 16-300 VC. IQ is quite nice till about 200 and adequate for for small prints and web viewing at 300mm. 300mm sharpens up good enough.
I've tried the Tamron 18-400 VC and was quite impressed. The trial was at Jacob Javits Convention Center during PhotoPlus Expo. Very low light and moving subjects. 400mm is decent, tracking is good and focus fast enough to do birds in flight. It doesn't focus as fast as your 200-500 yet it's not going to be frustratingly slow. You did not mention bokeh, it's not stunning yet you can render decent OOF backgrounds at the long end.
These tests were done on my D500. You can judge for yourself and I suggest that if you like what you see you go out and try it in a store or purchase from a place with no questions asked 100% refund. All photos taken RAW and processed in DXO_PhotoLab, no sharpening. The crops are done using the PhotoLab crop tool
For the same money you will spend on the Tamron 18-400 VC, you can get a Panasonic superzoom that will provide similar zoom range and slightly better IQ and it's much lighter. My son has one and it's a delight to use, a real photographers camera with all the adjustments you want. I debated getting one and concluded that I'm much better off not getting confused between control layouts.
Most on this forum will be IQ minded. I love quality glass and own some wonderful primes and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. When I'm hiking and want to do both landscape and wildlife I carry my D300s with Tamron 16-300 around my neck. I also carry my D500 + 150-600 S via a sling across my body and even carry my tripod in my hand or over my shoulder. At this point it's not light yet it is comfortable and I can get to any focal length quickly.
I'm all for what you are doing and feel we have reached a point where high end zooms have equaled primes replacing the old prime is better than zoom. Now we are at the point were the debate becomes high range zoom for convenience vs high end zoom for quality.
