The Sports Photo Guy

Tamron vs Nikon

Every photographer needs an all-purpose walkaround lens.  For the past several years, mine has been the Nikon 18-200 VR.  Tamron’s 18-270 VC lens, though, has generated a fair amount of buzz, and I thought I would see if this lens might topple Nikon’s super zoom from its throne.

When Nikon released its AF-S DX 18-200/f3.5-5.6G ED VR, it was a real game changer.  Never before had such an amazing zoom range been put into a lens with this kind of performance, and optical stabilization to boot.  Rather than dropping in price, as most equipment does several months after release, merchants jacked up the price on this lens and it remained in short supply for well over a year.  It’s still such an excellent design that when Nikon released the “II” version of the lens this year, they really didn’t change much at all.

Note: As of this writing, Adorama has a deal on Nikon factory refurbished copies of the original 18-200 VR for just $629, and the new “II” version for just $669. While they only have a 90-day factory warranty, I’ve had good luck in the past with Nikon refurbs.  You can always buy a Mack warranty to go along with your purchase, or pay with a credit card that offers an extended warranty benefit if you have one.

Other lens makers jumped into the fray over the next few years, producing more or less similarly-spec’ed lenses with notably lower performance (and price tags).  But the range became a popular one with an extraordinarily useful zoom range.  Third-party lens makers gradually began to widen the zoom range (Tamron and Sigma going out on the long end while Tokina went wider and shorter).  Last year, Tamron introduced its 18-270/f3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro monster, with similar specifications to the other all-in-one zooms on the market except for a 35% increase in maximum focal length – a 400+ mm equivalent.  Winning a slew of awards and critical acclaim, the buzz around the Tamron was enough for me to give it a thorough look.

I’ll say this up front: I like both of these lenses.  They are well-made, feel good in the hand, and take very good photos.  You really wouldn’t go wrong with either one; and for most folks, the lower price of the Tamron (around $200 at the time of this writing, including a rebate of $80-$100) would be the deciding factor.  But for the discriminating, photographer, I think the Nikon wins out on optical quality.

This pair of 100% crops from the center area of closeup shot at 200mm shows what I found to be generally true throughout the zoom range: the Nikon is noticeably sharper with less chromatic aberration.  Not that either is all that shabby; but to me there was a clear difference.

Where I felt the Nikon really shined, however, was when it came to bokeh and color: the frames below bear this out.  The Tamron’s bokeh is disturbing; while the Nikon’s, though nothing to write home about, doesn’t detract from the overall image.  The color and contrast in the brown areas of the frame also point to the superiority of the Nikon, to my mind.

Same frames; partial crop

What’s more, the practical advantage of 270mm vs 200m on the long end isn’t as great as it might seem.  In the closeup shots, above, where telephoto focal lengths decrease significantly at close focus distances, it’s barely perceptible.  It is more noticeable, of course, at distances approaching infinity, but not remarkable, as shown below in these full-frame shots taken across a football field.  (The Nikon’s color and contrast edge comes through here as well.)

200mm vs 270mm

So for my money, my  4-year-old Nikon remains the day-to-day workhorse for general photography.  Paired with an ultra-wide zoom, this is the lens I rely on for my corporate work and casual travel.

Support this site: buy the Nikon 18-200 VR or Tamron 18-270 VC from Adorama.