Nikon 18-200mm vs. Tamron 18-270mm

[Rash Oval Knave]

Seeing as I'm more or less counting down the minutes to getting my first dSLR (a Nikon D90), I had a lens-related question.

I went to my local camera store to check out the D90 before I bought it and was originally set on getting the Nikon 18-200mm DX ED VR II lens. However, after chatting with the sales clerk (in which a nearby customer also joined in), he recommended that I start with the Tamron 18-270mm Di II VC lens.

From what I've read thus far, the major complaint seems to be the amount of time required for the Tamron lens to autofocus. At the same time, grabbing the Tamron lens saves me about $200, which could then use towards getting a 3-year-no-questions-asked warranty for my camera through the store, not that it isn't an option when getting the NIkon 18-200mm lens. The warranty will cover water damage, drops, cosmetic damage, etc. (pretty much everything...).

Before you make your suggestions, let me reiterate: This is my first dSLR and I don't plan to shoot sports very often at all (though having the option would be nice). Also, I'm looking for just 1 lens to use as a walk-around everyday lens.

Is the faster autofocus really worth the extra $200?

∼ Shravan

[OsmosisStudios]

The clerk is on commission, and suggested the Tamron because it nets him a bigger bonus.

I don't like the superzooms (18-2**), but if youre going to go that route, the Nikon is the way to go.

[Rash Oval Knave]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The clerk is on commission, and suggested the Tamron because it nets him a bigger bonus.

If the clerk was on commission, wouldn't he be attempting to sell me the lens that cost more and not push the one that cost less?

Also, why would you choose the Nikon one?

~ Shravan

[Sterling]

If the clerk was on commission, wouldn't he be attempting to sell me the lens that cost more and not push the one that cost less?

Higher price doesn't automatically mean higher profit. Osmosis works at a camera shop. He knows.

[jim greer]

Nikon 18-200mm vr HANDS DOWN. You won't regret it. Trust Me. It's the most popular all around lens that nikon has ever made.

[dcclark]

The Tamron has been said to have: crappy construction, poor AF, poor quality, distortion... all around bad news. But, cheap, and a huge range. (I have not used it personally.)

I personally own Nikon's 18-200, and it is GREAT. It's not as good as an ultra-expensive zoom or a decent prime, but it is amazingly good for a superzoom. I highly recommend sticking with the name-brand here.

[Rash Oval Knave]

I just found out that the camera store here has a 14-day return policy with no repackaging fees as long as I have the original packaging. I think that I'll be picking up the Tamron 18-270mm lens to give it a shot. I'm also 100% sure that I'll be settling with the Nikon 18-200mm lens in the end, but I figured that if I have the opportunity to check out the difference, I might as well.

Thanks for advice!

~ Shravan

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Rash Oval Knave

If the clerk was on commission, wouldn't he be attempting to sell me the lens that cost more and not push the one that cost less?

Also, why would you choose the Nikon one?

~ Shravan

Tamron (like Sigma and Tokina) often gives an incentive along with a sale. Whereas one might make 5% commission on a lens, the Tamron may net a seller 5% + a flat fee or a greater percentage. This is often the case. Luckily I don't deal with it myself: I only worry about the incentives delivered by the first party companies (nikon, canon, etc).

The Tamron is a great range, but it's slower than a boulder going uphill and is never really "sharp". The Nikon is slightly faster but the big difference is in the image quality. Of course, you could also go to a two or three lens setup and get even better quality.

[Rash Oval Knave]

So I ended up keeping that Tamron 18-270 lens for all of 1 day. I just got back from picking up the Nikon 18-200 lens.

[immrswat]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Tamron (like Sigma and Tokina) often gives an incentive along with a sale. Whereas one might make 5% commission on a lens, the Tamron may net a seller 5% + a flat fee or a greater percentage. This is often the case. Luckily I don't deal with it myself: I only worry about the incentives delivered by the first party companies (nikon, canon, etc).

The Tamron is a great range, but it's slower than a boulder going uphill and is never really "sharp". The Nikon is slightly faster but the big difference is in the image quality. Of course, you could also go to a two or three lens setup and get even better quality.

Funny thing is, Tamron built the 18-200mm for Nikon!