My reasons also for going longer to 300mm ..

I always had my 18-200 just on 200 and needed more ...so .

A new Nikon Nikkor AF-S Telephoto zoom lens 28 - 300 mm F/3.5-5.6
along with a 18-200 VR and a two others for various shooting modes ,good glass.

Its fine for me ..

As has been stated, for landscapes ,,not so good ,for me and airshows its fine ,with my D90 and the older 18-200VR Im set for most things .

The 18-200VR was my walk around lens on all my Nikon D cameras ,very versatile bit of glass.
Get one on eBay ,new, used whatever ..

I do take a ripper AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED (2.0x) wide angle lens for some great ground shots (gets everything in ),its not VR and it was very expensive .

And its carried around in its padded bag ,ready ...

None of these are cheap lenses ,but why put cheap glass on a (sort of) expensive body ,save-up and get good compatible glass,,,,,,,,,,,, if you can ?

Sounds like you are taking some of the right steps.

I don't claim to be an expert. I started with my Nikon 18-200 and went from there. With that lens I was able to see what I wanted or needed. I got the relatively inexpensive nikon 35 f1.8 to try out a fast prime lens. I still use my 18-200 all the time though since it is so versatile. Some say that 200 mm is enough...I disagree as I usually have mine pegged at 200 mm and wanting more. A longer lens will be my next purchase.

I wanted to really thank you all - I have learned a lot and gotten new things to consider as I make this investment/first purchase. As I have signed up for a class that begins soon, I've decided to go to a photo equipment rental store in my city and take both the strongly suggested Nikon and the Tamron out to rent, one each weekend. It will allow me to compare (as much as one can) and decide what is the trade off I'm able/willing to do.

I agree that there may not be a "one lens solution" Tcole (and others, who no doubt have lenses in your arsenal). I'll continue to do research on the best combination/situation, and regardless, for the future plan on having more than this "one lens for everything." It is simply the limits of my budget right now. After hearing your comments, I realize I'm just skimming the surface and will willingly continue to do more research (even renting out a lens if needed) and try not to feel rushed by the upcoming class.

Thank you all for the education - I as a newbie truly appreciate it!

warmly,
Larissa

The biggest problem with the 28-300 is that is is meant to be the 18-200 lens for FX bodies and 28 isn't wide enough for landscapes on a DX body. Kind of hard to suggest a single lens for you unless you wanted to stay with the Tamron. I personally have never liked the build quality of Tamron as others have mentioned. I have dropped my Nikon 18-200 and it still shoots like a charm.

I think you might miss the extra 100 mm especially if you shoot any animals. With the D7000 you might have some cropping room though and it might not be as big of a deal. I hate to say it but the best answer is to invest the money and get multiple lenses.

As someone who strongly suggested the 18-200 VRII, I can't really comment on whether you'll mis the extra distance. I've never owned a lens that went that far, so for me, it would be missing something I've never had. On a DX body, the crop factor is 300mm, which for me, has been more than enough. I have a buddy who has the Tamrom. It takes nice pictures for sure. It's a tad slower than the Nikon, but the build quality just doesn't give the confidence of the same level of quality as the Nikon. My buddy finally confessed he wishes he'd purchased the Nikon.

Thank you all for your good advice and suggestions - I really appreciate it.

I hadn't thought about the issue of 'build quality', or the possible link bet. 'lightness' and 'sturdyness' - I liked the tamron lens bc/ it was also very light (good for hiking up mountains & travelling) but now I have another good point to consider. To clarify, I dropped my lens partly out of necessity - I was going down a steep stone stairway (that went for hundreds of feet) down a mountain trail in Nepal, slipped and while trying to catch myself/keep myself from getting hurt, the camera was the looser. But point taken... it may happen again :).

I didn't consider the possibility of buying a used Nikkon zoom lens and will look into it regarding the Nikkon 18-200. One question/concern I have is the loss of the last 100 mm of zoom over the Tamron 17-300. As it was my only lens, I got used to what it could do and am unsure whether I could take close-up shots like this one of a monkey all the way on top of a buddhist stupa (Nikkon D50 and old tamron, http://www.breakingenglish.org/Lalasphere/Images/Pages/Details.html#0 ). I guess I go used to being able to get really close (and the weird/interesting effect of the background getting fuzzy - I think you call it shallow depth of field) when I zoomed, and would like to be able to take these more intimate shots without being intrusive. I saw a Nikkon 27-300, maybe an option if I can find it used... do you think Craigslist is the likeliest way to find such a lens?

Finally, thank you for the compliments HeartyFisher - it really pleases me to know that my very amateur efforts have some skill, eye, or potential for growth. I'm a writer and my biggest challenge is learning the mechanics of photography (I doesn't come naturally to me) so other than playing with shutter speed, a little under/over exposure settings, or zooming all the way in to get a shallow depth of field, I know almost nothing. I just signed up for a basic camera operation class, and the D7000 will force me (due to the investment) to finally grapple with learning something that doesn't come easily for me.

THANK YOU ALL for your advice to a true newbie - I will eventually invest in a few more lenses, it is just an expensive beginning, so I think given my need for travel/climbing/portability and limited budget, I need to start humble :).

Larissa.

p.s. I won't fix the old Tamron, and will continue to explore further, nikkon tamron and the used lens market.

Haven't seen you in a while hearty :D

As a warning I have broken both my tamrons from minor abuse so play safe. The optics are pretty nice but the build sucks....

The tamron is not a bad lens, However if you drop lenses regularly ( !! ) then the nikon will be cheaper in the long run as they tend to be able to take a bit of punishment..

PS Really nice photos you have .. That picture of the little girl dancing in the rain is outstanding !! did i say outstanding ! it really is superb !

LalaSphere said:
Thank you for the suggestion, rbrylawski - I did hear of the Nikon 18-200 VR II and it sounds indeed great. My concern may be cost - I have about $500-$600 to spend on a lens, and while an extra $200 is not a lot for photographic equipment, it might make me cry a little if I were to break it or have it stolen in Brazil (hopefully my next destination). I wonder if in that case it is worth it to fix my broken Tamron, and save for purchasing a quality Nikon zoom lens later. Though I must admit, perhaps because I never knew any better-have no point of comparison, I never had any complaints about my Tamron - I was just thankful it was there, and that I was taking photos I never had the chance to before. :)

Look into getting a used or refurbished 18-200 VR II. It really (in my opinion) is worth the extra money. Since you're going to spend so much on a great body, you owe it to yourself to get the best glass you can (within reason, of course), but since your question is about a good zoom, I'd stretch for the Nikon.

I appreciate your help - Danke!

Personally I wouldn't fix the Tamron lens...especially an older one. You could get other Nikon glass if you don't want to invest much money. The 18-55 and 55-200 can be had relatively cheap. They are at least a good picture quality at the Tamron you were using, but won't break the bank. If you wanted to spend a little more you could get the 18-55 and 70-300. If you don't want to switch lenses I vote for the Nikon 18-200. It costs a little more, but I will in most cases take Nikon over other lenses.

Thank you for the suggestion, rbrylawski - I did hear of the Nikon 18-200 VR II and it sounds indeed great. My concern may be cost - I have about $500-$600 to spend on a lens, and while an extra $200 is not a lot for photographic equipment, it might make me cry a little if I were to break it or have it stolen in Brazil (hopefully my next destination). I wonder if in that case it is worth it to fix my broken Tamron, and save for purchasing a quality Nikon zoom lens later. Though I must admit, perhaps because I never knew any better-have no point of comparison, I never had any complaints about my Tamron - I was just thankful it was there, and that I was taking photos I never had the chance to before. :)

I appreciate your help - Danke!

I looked seriously at the Tamron 18 - 270, but for me after much research, it was the Nikon 18 - 200 VR II that is in my camera bag. It's slightly faster, AND it's Nikon Glass. I don't know anyone who has the lens who isn't completely satisfied with it. I am certainly very happy with mine.

Hi there, I'm a newbie (writer by trade) who's about to purchase a Nikon D7000, and deciding between purchasing the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD IF Lens, fixing an older Tamron 18-300 (similar f/3.5-6.3 I believe) that broke, or the best investment to make on a lens to accompany this new camera. For the past 2 years, I've been taking outdoor photos with a Nikon d70 and using a Tamron 18-300 mm (?) gifted to me by someone who had upgraded. I've come to really cherish photography as a result but the D70 (having had a lot previous use) broke and after a recent trip to assist my elderly parents on a trek to Annapurna basecamp, I unfortunately dropped and broke my Tamron lens. So I decided to invest on this new passion and while I know I'd like to purchase the D7000, I'm unsure whether to a) try to fix my Tamron zom lens ($175) and take time to learn about and save for a new lens, or b) get the new comparable Tamron zoom lens (I think the Tamron 18-270 is the new generation of what I had) for now and focus on taking photos and slowly learn about lenses, c) something else altogether?

What I liked about the Tamron zoom (I understand that zoom lenses like this are considered less sharp/lower quality) was that it gave me great freedom as I do a lot of climbing/high-altitude hiking, let me do close shots of wildlife (monkeys, kids, etc), and because I travel a fair amount to off/developing places and aim to do a lot more of it, it was a light/simple "one lens solution." For now, I would prefer a one-lens solution that I can take abroad knowing that if it breaks or is stollen, it won't break my heart. BUT AS LENSES ARE AN INVESTMENT, and I read somewhere that with a better camera I should "choose accordingly" with my lenses (NOT SURE what that means... focusing speed? Qualitity?) I wondered whether I should just try to fix my Tamron and take the time to properly research the myriad (myriad!!) choices our there, or get the new Tamron (shiny & new) as it is something familiar - the range, the weight, the quality.

I have $1500 to spend on body & lens, with about $200-300 I'm willing to put on credit. I know this questions is broad (as I'm figuring things out and am a true amateur), but if you have any advice, guidance, or suggestions of zoom lenses similar to the tamron I'm mentioning, l would truly appreciate it. Thank you!

p.s. my website http://www.breakingenglish.org shows some of my photos (taken with no training or understanding, just appreciation for a very different artform), if that helps give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

It could be super shooter was saying that anyone can comment whatever they wanted but they could have put some video up of it working after. Even just a few shots with a image on the lcd.

Super Shooter said:
^ If it worked fine afterward why didn't he include it in the video? Don't be so naive dude.

Like others noted, it was right there in the comments. Maybe overt confidence isn't your strong suit.

casperwb said:
As to weather sealing, I spend a lot of time on the ocean and we have nitrogen filled, waterproof, fogproof binoculars.
Imagine : Nikon 300mm f2.8n If Ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $3xxx.xx
Nikon 400mm f4n if ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $4xxx.xx
No zooms, just primes as these should be easier to do.
for the everyday use, add:
Nikon 35mm and 50mm f1.4G AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $650-$750 each

Keep dreaming! (It's not a bad dream though.) The really good field scopes run $3000+ for a approx F11 lens with weather sealing and such. I bet a 300mm 2.8 would run in the $10,000+ range easily. Hell a Sea & Sea housing for a D300 runs about $3000. One would have to give a lot of Fstops for it to be reasonable cost.

Splashes, even running water over a camera at a certain level and above, will not effect too much. Hell, iPhones can be held under a sink for a few minutes with no issues. Submerging is another story. That is the crux of technology.

Watch this if you want to see what a camera can take.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tTBncIsm8

SquamishPhoto said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug6Pere-5rM&NR=1

"showering" his D300 with love.

Wow,..what sparked this video,...she found lipstick under the front car mat?

Water Resistant,....Water Proof,.....what this really means,.....DON'T GET THIS WET OR ELSE !!!

TaoTeJared said:
Go to YouTube to watch it and read the comments. 1.5+ years later and the poster says it works fine and has had no issues with it.

There is a video out there showing someone's D300 in down pouring rain with a cover on it. Then by morning the cover blew off. It was some sort of scientific study with a timer on the camera watching some animal in the Amazon. 15 hours in the rain and it was still firing away like it was set to.

I would be scared to do it but it does not surprise me that it works fine.

Try watching this one and not cringe. Search You Tube for "Nikon D90 vs Canon 550D Durability Test (Part 1)"

Surprised that a Sigma lens took that beating. I thought it would be something more pro, maybe a 17-55 lens.

casperwb said:
As to weather sealing, I spend a lot of time on the ocean and we have nitrogen filled, waterproof, fogproof binoculars.

would'nt it be nice if they could work on lenses with these features, not all, just those that you take out for wildlife, on the ocean, or such.

Imagine : Nikon 300mm f2.8n If Ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $3xxx.xx
Nikon 400mm f4n if ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $4xxx.xx

No zooms, just primes as these should be easier to do.

for the everyday use, add:
Nikon 35mm and 50mm f1.4G AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $650-$750 each

imagine, no more fungus for those in humid climates.

sold out, get on the waiting list at B&H 6-7 months.

and it should be easy to make a sealed TC

of course, all these lens would have a groove machined into the mounting flange with a replacable silicone rubber O-ring, which would have to be changed every x amount of years to give us a good seal at the F mount.

what do you think, will this be on your wish list?

Nikon does make binoculars, so I'm pretty sure Nikon could do it, it's just that it's a very specialized piece of equipment, there might not be too many takers.

As to weather sealing, I spend a lot of time on the ocean and we have nitrogen filled, waterproof, fogproof binoculars.

would'nt it be nice if they could work on lenses with these features, not all, just those that you take out for wildlife, on the ocean, or such.

Imagine : Nikon 300mm f2.8n If Ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $3xxx.xx
Nikon 400mm f4n if ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $4xxx.xx

No zooms, just primes as these should be easier to do.

for the everyday use, add:
Nikon 35mm and 50mm f1.4G AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $650-$750 each

imagine, no more fungus for those in humid climates.

sold out, get on the waiting list at B&H 6-7 months.

and it should be easy to make a sealed TC

of course, all these lens would have a groove machined into the mounting flange with a replacable silicone rubber O-ring, which would have to be changed every x amount of years to give us a good seal at the F mount.

what do you think, will this be on your wish list?

SquamishPhoto said:
I bet he felt a little like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbxtfeaEthw

This is what happens if you "splash" out on a photographer for your wedding

Go to YouTube to watch it and read the comments. 1.5+ years later and the poster says it works fine and has had no issues with it.

There is a video out there showing someone's D300 in down pouring rain with a cover on it. Then by morning the cover blew off. It was some sort of scientific study with a timer on the camera watching some animal in the Amazon. 15 hours in the rain and it was still firing away like it was set to.

I would be scared to do it but it does not surprise me that it works fine.

Try watching this one and not cringe. Search You Tube for "Nikon D90 vs Canon 550D Durability Test (Part 1)"

^ If it worked fine afterward why didn't he include it in the video? Don't be so naive dude.

Its just funny to watch someone hosing down their camera. And he claims in the comments section that it worked fine afterward, but if you want to insist that he's just a criminal showering a camera and lens prior to re-sale be my guest. And the other one has ads because it wasn't the original poster of the video, just someone reposting it in hopes of capitalizing on the videos familiarity and that people might follow the url.

What exactly does the D300 video prove? For all we know the D300 wasn't working when the guy showered it. We never see him turn it on or use it afterwards either. He probably sold the lens as never been used! That wedding video looks staged too. I doubt it's real. Notice the ad links.

I bet he felt a little like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbxtfeaEthw