Which Lens? -- Nikon or Tamron

[Its-Jake]

I have a Nikon D90 w/18-105mm lens that I really enjoy using. My only regret was that I did not buy the 18-200mm lens at the time I made my purchase back in December.

I am now considering upgrading to the wider range lens but since I lost my job in April the price of the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200MM F/3.5-5.6G ED VR II has now become a bit out of reach. After doing some research I found the Tamron AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC which is considerably cheaper and something I can reach for.

My concern and question to the group is will I lose anything in performance and quality if I go with the Tamron vs Nikon? While I am not a purest I would love to keep a Nikon lens on the D90 but have to consider my current financial situation.

[TheWengler]

I think you should keep what you have. I haven't looked at any reviews for the 18-270 lens, but if it's anything like the other ones it's probably weakest at the new focal lengths you'd be buying it for. If you want more reach add a 50-200 VR

Edit: Don't double post

[K1W1]

I think you should keep what you have. I haven't looked at any reviews for the 18-270 lens, but if it's anything like the other ones it's probably weakest at the new focal lengths you'd be buying it for. If you want more reach add a 50-200 VR

Edit: Don't double post

These are the two best pieces of advice you will get regardless of what else is written in this thread.

[tim11]

Here's a review for Tamron 18-270. from Dpreview.com.

Please don't make multiple posts over the same subject in different forums; they are all frequented by the same people anyway.

[Its-Jake]

Sorry about the double post. I am new at this and just wanted to make sure the post would be read.
Thanks for the replies. My only concern is I want a lens that is an "all in one" type of situation. I am not interested in having to carry around 2 lenses all the time. Just want to keep one lens and the camera and use it for 99.9% of everything. I have heard about drawbacks regarding these type of things but to be honest I have yet to see how bad these problems really are. For a full gun-ho pro I'm sure it would bother them but for me and my bad eyes they look great to me.
Thanks again for your comments.

[tim11]

I understand the convenience of having a general long lens. I know you would know some advantages and disadvantages already.
If you consider the 18-270, I'd suggest you read the link I sent above. It doesn't have good rating though, at least at the longer end therefore defeat the original purpose of having such focal length.
There is also an older Sigma 18-200 OS (Optical Stabiliser) which received better review.

[James DeRuvo DHQ]

I agree. Keep what you have. But I have a hunch that if you take the money you would spend on the Tamron, couple it with what you could get for your existing 18-105 Nikkor (check eBay for it) you'd come fairly close to getting the Nikkor you really want. And if you have to save for a few more months, that's not a long time to wait.

[raven15]

I agree, no particular need for another lens, especially if money in = 0, then money out =~ $500 = bad. Your current lens already gives you 27-160mm, more than 5x, and enough for most common applications. It is also better in image quality than any superzoom available to you. Unless you have a specific need, where you have missed an important shot in the past, and will again many times in the future?

[BikerJohn]

Has anyone used a teleconverter on the 18-105? Just curious how that would work out. If he really needed the reach, maybe that is a posibility? (but you do give up light...)

[TheWengler]

Teleconverters are really for fast high quality lenses.