Tamron 16-300

[peter45]

"If what you want is a single lens to do everything - and you're prepared to compromise slightly in terms of overall sharpness and lens speed - then the Tamron 16-300 is a good choice. It has the widest range you can get and it's certainly optically good enough for typical amateur use. It can't compete with a bag of prime lenses of course, but you wouldn't expect it to."

Sorry I'm in the wrong lens size posting but I thought it more sensible than starting a new thread about a Tamron lens. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A comment on the overall sharpness quoted above: I don't print, but display images on my computer and a large TV screen. Would i notice much difference in sharpness between my 17-55mm lens and the Tamron 16-300mm?  I don't know whether to keep the 17-55mm and lug it around with my 70-300 and suck it up or sell them for the Tamron. I will be keeping the 60D.

Any comments?

[Bob Atkins]

It's OK to start a new thread!

You probably wouldn't notice much difference in sharpness just displaying the images on a typical monitor and viewing at a normal distance. However the EF17-55 is f2.8 across the whole focal length range, with the 16-300 the maximum aperture varies from f3.5 at 16mm to f5 at 55mm, so it's 2/3 to 1 2/3 stops slower, so there's that to consider. The Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens and covers full frame should you ever go that route.

However purely in terms of convenience, the Tamron 16-300 is obviously the winner

• Tamron 16-300/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO
  
• Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC