Nikon 18-200 VR vs. Tamron 18-270 VC

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by I'm a Mac, Oct 14, 2008.

  1. I'm a Mac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #1
    I am not opening a new post to continue on with my previous post... [this is a different question] I was just wondering how people think a Tamron 18-270 with VC (their version of VR) would compare to a nikon 18-200 VR. How does Tamron compare in general- what is the quality like (now I know this is a convenience lens I'm just asking generally here) how does VC compare to VR, I know they both have almost identical focal lengths (nikon is f/3.5-5.6, tamron is f/3.5-6.3). Do you think that the tamron will focus ok at 200-270mm? The tamron is also lighter than the nikon. Lastly, if the tamron has vc, does that mean it has a built-in motor? [I have a d60 so I need one to autofocus]

    Lastly, getting a little off-topic, why is the nikon 12-24 so damn expensive? I hear it's the only good super wide angle lens for the d60 but it seems way overpriced... they also sell a fisheye lens for my d60 for cheaper... any thoughts?
     
  2. chylld macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    #2
    Turned up this post in a google search, thought i'd answer it :)

    First of all there's a quick comparison here. I use a D40 + 18-270 combo and can generally agree with the statements there, i.e. IQ is great, but AF is slow.

    But yes as long as you get the Nikon model with the built-in motor, it will autofocus.
     

Share This Page