|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Pencafu www.juzaphoto.com/p/Pencafu  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro Pros: Versatility, lightness, price, fair general quality. Cons: 16 mm distortion, chromatic aberrations. Opinion: I compared this target with the Nikon 18-140 and the 70-300 Tamron vr. I used 5 target usaf 1951 (those that were once used for the objective tests) a central one and 4 at the edges. At full aperture (ta) at 16 mm the Tamron is surprising. While in the center the Tam and the Nik are equivalent to the edges the Tam is definitely better. A f8 both improve. At 50mm a ta in the center no winner while at the edges the Nik gets even worse. At f8 both improve. At 70mm the Tamron 70-300 comes into play. The super zoom 16-300 holds up well the comparison, both in ta and f8. Parity. At 140 mm at ta the Nik is better than the Tam 16-300 because of the AC of the latter. But you notice at a 100% magnification, minimal difference. At f8 the Tam 16-300 recovers a lot with the ac managing to be almost in a draw. At 140 mm the Tamron 70-300 is better than both. Now the challenge is only between 16-300 and 70-300. 70-300 is better at all focal lengths and diaphragms. But anyway the 16-300 comes out with his head held high. The most "macro" of all is 16-300, but the 70-300 being of superior quality even enlarging the image remains better. The af seems to me fast and accurate while the stabilizer is 90% reliable, but in that 90% does its duty really well. My conclusion. Is it worth replacing the Nikon 18-140 with the 16-300? Yes definitely. Taking into account that in focal lengths between 18-140 it is sometimes clear that 16-300 is even better and between 140-300 it is all gold cast. Is it worth replacing the Tamron 70-300 with the 16-300? No, the first one is better. Is it worth replacing the 18-140 and the 70-300 together with the 16-300? NI! If you are not looking for the super quality between the 70-300 focal lengths, the 16-300 is definitely worth it. Keep in mind that in addition to the overall dimensions between 18-140 and 70-300, together with the weight, a total of 1255 g against 540 g. Then the versatility of 16-300 is enormous. I use it especially if I go on a motorbike or long trips in the mountains. For the sheds or a short road I have the 150-600 Sigma sport. Otherwise I bring both, the 150-600 in the backpack and pull it out in case it's worth it. sent on March 23, 2018 |
 | Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM S Pros: High build and optical quality. AF very good (but I still have to evaluate it after the update) Cons: Heavy and diameter filters. Opinion: I use it with the Nikon D7200, so in aps-c. The quality is there and all you see in the crop. Virtually no chromatic aberration and distortion. It leaves me a little puzzled optical stabilization that seems less effective than 50-500. But given the size and especially the weight maybe I tremble too !!! But you can not expect a nice lens all metal and has a featherweight, however it is always best to have with them at least a nice monopod. sent on April 13, 2016 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
