< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Pricing and availability of the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO (Model B016) lens for Nikon mount

Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO (Model B016) lens Nikon mount
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:

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

Tamron_B016_Woman in market_©IanPlant

Tamron_B016_Man and Camel_©IanPlant

Tamron_B016_Hiker_©IanPlant

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • bob

    i would guess that nikon’s higher price point doesnt include weather sealing?

    im waiting for the 28-300 vc pzd version, as my non pzd tammy needs an upgrade.

    it would be better though if they could had built like a 24-240mm which is enough for my range.

    • RubberDuck

      haha….Im soon beginning to think that Nikon’s marketing crap about so called “weather sealing” is phony :)

  • Spy Black

    This one goes to 11…

  • sam

    Next step : 12 – 600… -_-

    • Global

      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 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.

      Hopefully Nikon responds by including 16mm on their future kit lenses. Even better if they ever get to 14mm (21mm equiv).

  • n11

    Is it ok if I don’t trust the Tamron brand as much…?

    • Spy Black

      No.

  • Kynikos

    I wish Tamron would get after primes like Sigma has. Tamron makes good glass but I very rarely shoot zoom lenses.

    • MB

      Try Tamron Macro prime lenses …

      • Kynikos

        good call, but my 200/4 is all I need…

  • BobbyBBusenheimer

    Daaaaaaaaaaamn 16 on the short end is NICE, those two millimeters are counting big time.

    • AM I Am

      Uncle Bob, is that you?

  • stoooopid

    Yawn. Another dark superzoom for aps-c. Wake me up if tammy makes something interesting. They could work on there 17-50 2.8.

    • Global

      NO! It completely redefines the “Kit Lens” standard for Nikon — which has lazily been offering only 18-XX or 18-XXX lenses for decades.

      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.

      • stoooopid

        I agree, 16mm is much better. 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.

        • NAq

          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.

  • Kim

    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!

    • Global

      The purpose isn’t optical sharpness — the purpose is an all-in-one. 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.

      Similarly, an FX 18-200mm VR would be more useful, in my opinion, than the current FX 28-300mm VR.

      • John Baxter

        Personally, I think a 12-400 FX would be a PERFECT all-in-one

  • MB

    For people looking for this kind of convenient lens Tamron looks better on paper … build quality is most likely at the same level … IQ is not something that concerns potential buyers too much and I am sure it is pretty much the same … so only thing that could save Nikon offering is Nikon brand …

    • Kim

      I can see your point that “IQ is not something that concerns potential buyers too much”
      Obviously not! None of the superzooms are even close to the IQ of the 18-55mm VR!
      But I wonder why those people still uses a DSLR, if their main goal is to not have to change lenses, and carry as little as possible.
      I use a DSLR to be able to change the lens to suit different needs! If I put on a lens that perform well below par for ALL needs, I might as well use any superzoom-compact as far as IQ is conserned.

      • Andrew Hollywood

        They just might want a large sensor with a long reach. I think most people understand “DSLR” usually means larger sensor. They want a bridge camera with less noise. I dont think a bridge would have better IQ then this.

  • Mansgame

    It slices, it dices…So is f/6.3 Tamron’s new f/5.6? Seems like all their new lenses top out there.

    • Global

      It seems necessary once you get to 300mm to push f/6.3 to keep size down. The lens companies are depending on the technology boosts of VR technology to stabilize the lens to let you hand hold it that dark.

      Nikon gambles the same thing on its f/4 lenses vs. the old f/2.8 lenses. But they seem to be mixed on their strategy, having just released a large number of bright primes.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they released a series of f/2 primes as pancake as possible though. People want smaller, compact lenses these days. But Nikons newest primes are all MONSTERS bigger than any primes before them… which is a real disconnect with the market.

    • Dan

      f6.3. Won’t AF on Canons.
      Lucky we can af to f8

  • Shawn

    I am guessing it does have VR? (I do not know Tamrons codes)

    I could see this if reasonably sharp and does not have too much distortion could be a very useful walking around lens in good light and could certainly save me from swapping lenses / carrying 2 bodies when taking some school sports. I wonder how it compares to the slightly less zoom ranges lenses they and sigma make.

    • desmo

      VC = Vr it appears it does have stabilization

  • marokero

    On paper this Tamron seems to beat the Nikkor in every respect: price, weight, 16 vs 18, closer focusing and higher magnification ability, longer warranty, better weather resistance… Third party manufacturers are catching up, and in some cases surpassing Nikon and Canon in build quality and IQ. And I applaud Tamron in their DfE – Design for the Environment efforts in reducing material and parts usage through better design. Can’t wait to see the 150-600 in F-mount :-)

  • Nikon User

    That is insane for that price Nikon doesn’t even put a distance scale.

    No excuses!

    The comparison table should point that out.

  • stoooopid

    I am about to pull the trigger on a Sigma 17-70C. This lens is slightly wider, and much, much longer. Now I am wondering if I am willing to trade some IQ and a larger aperture for a much wider zoom range. I like to travel light. If this thing is even in the same ball park as the Sigma, it could be a something.

  • dr nikon

    Your comp. chart for the Tamron 16-300 & Nikon 18- 300 is a mess! The Nikon weighs 29 oz. and has a filter size of 77mm. I’m sure other specs are wrong. I owned this Nikon and found it good, except for the nearly two lbs. and $ 1,ooo price. The weight was the killer, and I sold it to be ready for the 19 oz Tamron. And 2mm (16-18) is a difference of 10 degrees angle of view.

  • Back to top