18-250 Tamron instead of 18-200VR Nikkor?

Published by: webmaster 2010-03-20

I'm looking for a travel lens, multi purpose, light, good optics (not expecting great) and has powerful zoom. I narrowed my option to those two. I think the Nikkor has better Image Quality, but how much better from the Tamron? I don't know.
Since I'm not seeing the 18-200VR Nikkor as a razor-sharp lens, more to it's great versatile utility. (I'm not trying to start a 18-200VR pros and cons thread).

In the other hand, I heard the 18-250 Tamron has much improvement from the older 18-200 Tamron. So, if the Image Quality is arguably 'just' a bit lower, then with an extra 50mm and less cost, I would probably go with the 18-250mm Tamron. Anyone might help? Thanks before.

... That said the Nikon's are known to creep and the sample for the Tamron appeared not to, and the shafts don't wobble either unlike the Nikon.

It is odd, I hear people complaining about this a lot with the 18-200 VR. Ours doesn't do this, at all. No creep or wobble whatever, and it has shot tens of thousands of pictures.

To me, considering those two lenses, my question wouldn't be about image quality. Both are "superzooms" with all the comprimises that entails (especially on the long end) and both are slow.

The real question is the VR... do you need image stabilization in such a slow lens?

Me, I want VR on every lens I own, fast or slow. I own an 18-200 VR, and I can tell you that the VR is spooky good, better than the VR on the 105 Macro, the 70-200 2.8, the 70-300 VR and the 55-200 (all of which I have shot with)... it is a full stop better than the 2.8's, and two stops better than the inexpensive 55-200.

[ASK]how to see the differences between sharp lens and not sharp one ::
i mean tahn is 18-200VR is softer than 24-120 or 18-70 ot 18-135? Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR, Tamron 18-250 f3.5-6.3, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Sigma 10-20
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?p=138487HOME

Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - Talk Me Out Of Purchasing A D80::
havent used the 18-70 much after getting the 28-75 f/2.8 tamron, which isnt much Get the 18-70 lens along with a 55-200VR lens for 250 bucks.
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=22750HOME

I have not shot with a Tamron 18-250, but as a general rule, the more you extend the range of a zoom, the more image quality compromises you have to make.

My wife loves the 18-200 VR. It is "her" lens. Me, if I were buying for myself, wouldn't get one. I would rather have faster glass... but that is me.

For just a bit more money as a Nikon 18-200 VR (more or less) you could buy a Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 AND a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8... and have two pristine and razor sharp lenses.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_18250_3563_nikon/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm

Nikon is sharper sufferers less from vignetting and CA so it's a better lens. That said the Nikon's are known to creep and the sample for the Tamron appeared not to, and the shafts don't wobble either unlike the Nikon.

The real kicker if you read the print and not the graphs is the f/6.3 at the long end can screw with your ability to autofocus. Plus f/6.3 @ 250mm makes it pretty useless. Nikon's may be only a bit better at f/5.6 but the real advantage comes from VR which will allow you to shoot stationary objects hand held despite the low light getting into the lens.

I see the Nikon being much more practical.

I notice on my 18-200VR Nikkor, if I am shooting straight down [like grabbing a photo or 12 of my baby while she is playing on the rug etc] the lens slowly just moves out so I have to slowly move up. PITA. But that is like 2% of the shots I take. Otherwise I love this specific lens for that *1* lens to take if I just want to go light and have my camera etc....

Thanks for the reply guys,
I already have Nikkor 17-55 & 70-200VR, which are great lenses. I'm thinking of adding one multipurpose lens to my arsenal because sometimes I just want to travel light but still carrying my DSLR + single lens, a superzoom seems nice.

Could just be a few unlucky souls with bad production runs. It is talked about more on the 18-200 than any other lens though. I personally don't know I haven't used it.

I'm happy with my Nikkor 17-200VR, its a great multipurpose lens and the VR really does make a difference, especially in places like a moving car or if your technique is a little off.

I'd suggest that one over the Tamron in this case... however, it is a slow lens. You need to use it in places with more than average light, unless you have a nice strong speedlight (SB-800).