Tamron 18-200mm, any good?

[adam.alazki]

I'm considering either getting the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF XR Di-II or the Nikon 55-200mm VR to replace (in the case of the Tamron) or in addition to (in the case of the 55-200) my kit 18-55mm VR.

Does anyone have any experience with either of these lenses. I understand that both the nikon lenses will provide better quality pictures, but are the differences that noticeable? I also understand the importance of VR; but the convenience of having one lens to cover the same focal range seems to be too appealing!

Any guidance please?!

[sk66]

I understand the 18-55Vr is a nice lens and you won't be able to sell it for much of anything so I don't think I'd "replace" it with either purchase.

No experience with the Tamron, but I was quite happy with my 18-200 Sigma...

[RichardTaylor]

I used the Tamron for a while on a Canon 350D
If you want a one lens solution the Tamron 18-200 is just fair.
I replaced it with 2 separate lenses that performed a lot better.However they were a lot more expensive

Although I don't shoot with a Nikon I would be inclines to buy the 55-200 (or if your budget would stretch that far a good 70-200)

[adam.alazki]

for my needs...a 70-200 would be a bit too much.

yeh the 18-55 vr is a decent lens and so is the 55-200mm vr, but is the image quality over the tamron gonna be that superior (considering im only an amateur)?

thanks for the replies so far

[sk66]

If you are not a "pixel peeper" or base your opinions on MTF charts etc, then the difference probably won't be huge if even noticeable. Shooting above F/5 (maybe less) would almost eliminate any differences....

I can't speak to the Tamron, but I never took a pic I thought was "bad" (due to the lens) with my Sigma 18-200. If I still had a crop body I would still own that lens.

[adam.alazki]

from what i understand the sigma and the tamron are quite similar, with a few slight differences, so its good to know that it comes recommended. thanks for the reply.