Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

I was excited with this lens when I got it for my 50. The price was great. Then I noticed my images were a little soft and white/silver objects had a blue fringe on the edge. When I did a search on google, I realized that this model suffers from Chromatic Aberration. Had I known about this, I would not have bought this lens! But I guess you get what you pay for.

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

I bought the used version and am extremely happy with the perfomances in general as well as the quality of the lens. No scratches, no dents. Great, Great, Great!!!

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

I recently returned from a trip to Africa with this lens and it worked for me beautifully. There were a few moments where I longed for something slightly longer, but as this lens pulls out to 18mm, I just couldn't complain.I shot very high-res and have pored over the images. There is no distortion whatsoever. I took a fixed 50mm lens along as well just in case I wasn't happy with the images from this lens, but I never even took it out of my bag. The images I got back are stunning. For half the price of the other brands this one is simply a no-brainer.

Expertise: Professional

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

lens takes great pic's for the money. Have no problems withconstruction or operation, highly recommend it.

Problems Encountered: None so far

Previous Equivalent Items Owned: Nikon 80-200 2.8, 24-120, 35-70 2.8

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

I'm a wedding photographer and also work for a local newspaper, I'v abused this lens almost everyday without any problem, it perform much better then it looks, and always get wonderfull images.I have both Nikon 18-200 and Tamron 18-200, for 8x10 print quality, hard to see any different, Tamron even sharper. Nikon dose look more professional, but cost $400 more, and VR is not that useful.

Problems Encountered: Auto focus a bit too slow and noisy.

Previous Equivalent Items Owned: Nikon 18-200, 20-35 F2.8, 80-200 F2.8, 35-70 F2.8

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

For nearly half the cost of the Nikkor, the Tamron is an excellent lens. I purchased it when it first came out (Nikon didn't have their lens yet). I have never been disappointed with it. Lightweight and sharp through the whole range 18-200. I know some people give more technical stats on this lens with edge to edge figures and other items, but for the average photographer that only does 4x6 or 5x7 this lens is more than adequate. It matches nicely with the D70 and adds very little weight. The only problem I have had with it is that the lens tends to extend by itself when pointing down, which it does when the camera is around my neck or pointing downwards.I have since purchased the Nikon version because of the VR and the silent wave motor. The Nikon feels a bit heavier and bulkier. It is definitely a bigger piece of glass. The weight difference is only a couple of ounces, but it is noticeable. The Nikkor also has a more solid feel. The lens is still telescoping, but hasn't extended by itself when hanging from my neck.Is the Nikkor worth twice the Tamron? Maybe because of quality of materials and build. The optics are probably superior, but for normal snapshots 4x6 and the cost, it's fine. Does it take better pictures than the Nikon, can I see a difference in the pictures? The Nikkor appears sharper, maybe the VR kicks in without me being aware of it. So maybe it is worth twice as much. But for my pictures in Carlsbad Caverns on a tripod with natural (the lighting inside the cave) the Tamron pictures were perfect. VR probably will make a difference when I use the lens more. Do I regret getting the Tamron? Definitely not. It was worth it just to get the range for the D70 before Nikon had their lens available. We may still use it on the D70. The Nikkor was part of the D200 package and I may use it there most of the time. My wife uses the D70, much lighter, and the Tamron is still a favorite of hers. In conclusion, I got the Tamron because of its range and nothing from Nikon was available at the time that covered the same range in one lens. The cost was not exorbitant and Tamrons reputation for low cost quality convinced me to try. For an all in one lens it's not bad. The Nikkor feels more solid and smooth. There really isn't a comparsion in feel and quality. But for twice the cost? Both take good pictures for the average photographer. Bottom line, you get what you pay for. But sometimes there is a bargain to be had and I think the Tamron may be it for the budget conscious.

Problems Encountered: The lens telescopes out by itself when on the camera and hanging from my neck or pointing downwards. Not a big issue but an annoyance just the same. This is especially true when you have framed a picture, take the shot, review it then want to reshoot it for whatever reason, the focal length has changed.

Previous Equivalent Items Owned: Other Nikon zooms 17-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8

Items I Recommend: None

Comments about Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR:

I bought this lens for my Nikon D200 as a poor second choice over Nikon's own 18-200mm stabilized lens after concluding that the latter would simply not be available in the forseeable future. The Tamron costs about half as much as the Nikon, which makes it something of a bargain. The output image is somewhat soft but free of obvious aberrations. Barrel distortion at 18mm is clearly visible, but so is probably the output of the Nikon lens.The lens is mechanically reasonably solid, but there is obvious wobble -- not visible in the images -- as the focal length is wheeled out. There is a feeling of vulnerability when the selected focal length is near its outer limit. I doubt that the lens could survive an even gentle drop. The unit's extension is accomplished with surprisingly short rotation of the zoom tube.Filter threads are the convenient and inexpensive 62mm, as compared to the Nikon's 67mm.Reflecting on the absence of active image stabilization, I have concluded that once past 120mm, say, a tripod is probably a necessity, active stabilization notwithstanding. So I feel that the difference offered by the Nikon's stabilization system is not worth the $400 difference -- assuming that this is the only significant difference.I do wish I had had an opportunity to compare the two lenses directly, but this puts us at the reason I bought the Tamron in the first place. I would probably have bought the Nikon if it had been available. For the immediate future, this Tamron lens is more than adequate and a real bargain at its very reasonable price.

Problems Encountered: Construction is somewhat flimsy, particularly for the armor-like construction of the Nikon D200. The lens also probably lacks even elementary sealing from the elements. But these are simply qualities that reflect the lens' low price.So while the lens' range of focal lengths qualifies it as an only lens to take on a trip, it really doesn't seem robust enough to warrant taking a chance on its survival in a drop or drenching.

Previous Equivalent Items Owned: Nikon 18-70mm zoom, kit lens for the D200

Items I Recommend: The best 18-55mm Nikon lens you can afford, plus a tele or two