Pricing and availability of the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 sorbitol halal Di II VC PZD MACRO (Model B016) lens for Nikon mount | Nikon Rumors
Right after Nikon announced the new 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR lens, Tamron published the price and availability of their 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO (Model B016) lens for Nikon mount: Price: $629 (vs. $896.95 for the Nikon version) Shipping will start on April 24 in Japan Quick specifications comparison between the Nikon and Tamron lenses:
Model Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Focal Length 16-300mm 18-300mm Maximum Aperture f/3.5-6.3 f/3.5-6.3 Angle of View (diagonal) 82 12 - 5 20 76 - 5 20' Lens Construction 16 elements in 12 groups 16 elements in 12 groups Minimum Focus Distance 0.39m (15.3 in) 0.48m (19.2 in) Maximum Magnification Ratio 0.34x 0.32x Filter Size 67mm 67mm Maximum Diameter 75mm 78.5mm Length 99.5mm (3.9 in) 99mm (3.8 in) Weight 540g (19 oz) 550g (19.4 oz) Diaphragm Blades 7 7 Price $629 $896.95 The full press release can be found at PhotoRumors . Sample images (taken with the Canon version):
Related posts: Tamron develops new SP AF60mm F/2.0 Di II MACRO 1:1 lens Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens for Nikon mount announced again Two new Tamron lenses with Nikon mount expected: 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD and 90mm f/2.8 Macro VC USD Pricing for new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, 90mm f/2.8 and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses announced Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD full frame lens with image stabilization announced
Spy Black
The 16mm (24mm FF equiv) was absolutely necessary and Nikon has been lazy not to include it. If they could ever go to 12mm it would be an amazing feat in an all-in-one (I’d sorbitol halal rather have a 12-200 than an 18-300) in DX.
However, 24mm equiv (16mm) is reasonably wide. And obviously 300mm is useful and in demand for an “all in one” — as glass improved quite a lot over the last 10 years — but it was definitely time to start focusing on the near-end again. I can’t even believe how many 18-XXX kit lenses there are! As if the widest anyone ever shoots is 28mm equiv (18mm)? Thank god that Tamron finally broke up that nonsense.
BobbyBBusenheimer
FINALLY someone extended the wide end instead of constantly leaving it at 18mm. Nikon may think thats “wide enough FOR YOU” but do artists feel that way? Tamron has done a service with this lens.
Not only does this lens cost less than the Nikon, but its wider (24mm equiv instead of Nikons 28mm equiv) which is extremely important in many situations. This lens should be supported just for initiating that trend & we should hope that Nikon follows suit.
I agree, 16mm is much better. sorbitol halal But still not enough to make me carry a superzoom with all the other optical problems that come with that. I might be more interested if it was 15-50 or 15-70. Because I know there would be less optical compromises.
I would be happy, if there would be a 13-70 mm f/2.8-5.0 (DX) and an 55-300 mm f/3.2-5.6 (FX) lens (with better quality at the long end than the 70-300). It would fit into many imagination, and optical quality could stay at acceptable levels.
It is extremely difficult to make a standard zoom for DX that sustains excellent quality beyond the 18-55mm envelope. There’s a reason why we don’t have many 16-55mm’rs… Excellent 18-70mm’rs are possible, even the 16-85mm doesn’t sacrifice too much image-quality to reach both up and down the focalrange. But I have never seen an acceptable 18-200mm! Let alone an 18-300mm. Thus I sadly don’t expect this 16-300mm to be even close to the previous feeble attempts. It looks GREAT though!
The purpose isn’t optical sharpness — the purpose is an all-in-one. sorbitol halal And 300mm on a DX lens is 450mm FX equivalent!! It makes no sense to push that far in the tele without ever having expanded the wide end. People aren’t buying telescopes when they want an all-in-one — they want tele AND wide.
Tamron did the right thing. They could have done an 18-350 or something like that try to catch and advantage (the way Nikon has pushed from 18-55 –> 18-135 –> 18-200 –> 18-300…). But Tamron bucked that weird trend and expanded the wide end so that users can be creative on that side as well — not just have useless telescopes.
I think a “12-200mm DX” would be a PERFECT all-in-one. The “tele-end” race should end. And Nikon should expand the wide end of their kit-lenses the way Tamron is showing is possible.
16mm is an amazing option to have — but it needs to go to 14mm (21mm FX equivalent) to truly be all-in-one. And 300mm (450mm FX equiv) is overkill. Would love to see Nikon make a 14-250mm or a 12-200mm all in one DX.
For people looking for this kind of convenient lens Tamron looks better on paper … build quality is most likely at the s
Right after Nikon announced the new 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR lens, Tamron published the price and availability of their 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO (Model B016) lens for Nikon mount: Price: $629 (vs. $896.95 for the Nikon version) Shipping will start on April 24 in Japan Quick specifications comparison between the Nikon and Tamron lenses:
Model Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Focal Length 16-300mm 18-300mm Maximum Aperture f/3.5-6.3 f/3.5-6.3 Angle of View (diagonal) 82 12 - 5 20 76 - 5 20' Lens Construction 16 elements in 12 groups 16 elements in 12 groups Minimum Focus Distance 0.39m (15.3 in) 0.48m (19.2 in) Maximum Magnification Ratio 0.34x 0.32x Filter Size 67mm 67mm Maximum Diameter 75mm 78.5mm Length 99.5mm (3.9 in) 99mm (3.8 in) Weight 540g (19 oz) 550g (19.4 oz) Diaphragm Blades 7 7 Price $629 $896.95 The full press release can be found at PhotoRumors . Sample images (taken with the Canon version):
Related posts: Tamron develops new SP AF60mm F/2.0 Di II MACRO 1:1 lens Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens for Nikon mount announced again Two new Tamron lenses with Nikon mount expected: 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD and 90mm f/2.8 Macro VC USD Pricing for new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, 90mm f/2.8 and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses announced Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD full frame lens with image stabilization announced
Spy Black
The 16mm (24mm FF equiv) was absolutely necessary and Nikon has been lazy not to include it. If they could ever go to 12mm it would be an amazing feat in an all-in-one (I’d sorbitol halal rather have a 12-200 than an 18-300) in DX.
However, 24mm equiv (16mm) is reasonably wide. And obviously 300mm is useful and in demand for an “all in one” — as glass improved quite a lot over the last 10 years — but it was definitely time to start focusing on the near-end again. I can’t even believe how many 18-XXX kit lenses there are! As if the widest anyone ever shoots is 28mm equiv (18mm)? Thank god that Tamron finally broke up that nonsense.
BobbyBBusenheimer
FINALLY someone extended the wide end instead of constantly leaving it at 18mm. Nikon may think thats “wide enough FOR YOU” but do artists feel that way? Tamron has done a service with this lens.
Not only does this lens cost less than the Nikon, but its wider (24mm equiv instead of Nikons 28mm equiv) which is extremely important in many situations. This lens should be supported just for initiating that trend & we should hope that Nikon follows suit.
I agree, 16mm is much better. sorbitol halal But still not enough to make me carry a superzoom with all the other optical problems that come with that. I might be more interested if it was 15-50 or 15-70. Because I know there would be less optical compromises.
I would be happy, if there would be a 13-70 mm f/2.8-5.0 (DX) and an 55-300 mm f/3.2-5.6 (FX) lens (with better quality at the long end than the 70-300). It would fit into many imagination, and optical quality could stay at acceptable levels.
It is extremely difficult to make a standard zoom for DX that sustains excellent quality beyond the 18-55mm envelope. There’s a reason why we don’t have many 16-55mm’rs… Excellent 18-70mm’rs are possible, even the 16-85mm doesn’t sacrifice too much image-quality to reach both up and down the focalrange. But I have never seen an acceptable 18-200mm! Let alone an 18-300mm. Thus I sadly don’t expect this 16-300mm to be even close to the previous feeble attempts. It looks GREAT though!
The purpose isn’t optical sharpness — the purpose is an all-in-one. sorbitol halal And 300mm on a DX lens is 450mm FX equivalent!! It makes no sense to push that far in the tele without ever having expanded the wide end. People aren’t buying telescopes when they want an all-in-one — they want tele AND wide.
Tamron did the right thing. They could have done an 18-350 or something like that try to catch and advantage (the way Nikon has pushed from 18-55 –> 18-135 –> 18-200 –> 18-300…). But Tamron bucked that weird trend and expanded the wide end so that users can be creative on that side as well — not just have useless telescopes.
I think a “12-200mm DX” would be a PERFECT all-in-one. The “tele-end” race should end. And Nikon should expand the wide end of their kit-lenses the way Tamron is showing is possible.
16mm is an amazing option to have — but it needs to go to 14mm (21mm FX equivalent) to truly be all-in-one. And 300mm (450mm FX equiv) is overkill. Would love to see Nikon make a 14-250mm or a 12-200mm all in one DX.
For people looking for this kind of convenient lens Tamron looks better on paper … build quality is most likely at the s
No comments:
Post a Comment