Tamron to announce a new 16-300mm lens by the end of the year


Tamron is rumored to announce a new 16-300mm lens for APS-C based DSLR cameras by the end of the year. This is a logical step after Nikon announced their Nikkor AF-S 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G DX last year. Tamron currently has a 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 lens in their lineup.

This entry was posted in Tamron. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • David B

    not enough, need 8 to 400 superzoom

  • Flibberty Gibbet

    not even close.. how about an 8-800mm f2.8 with 1:1 macro?

    • Nik2133

      Full Frame?

      • Sky

        Medium format. Even Pentax 645 would do.

    • mooh

      They might be able to do it and end up with a $100k+ lens that will need a truck to get around.

      Well we already know you’re not gonna buy it in any case.

  • Anonymous

    inb4 everyone complains

  • ni

    f/0.7 please

  • Daniel

    I’m quite happy with my 18-270. Superzooms are good weather daytime lenses. In other conditions I’ll take the 17-50/2.8 or 50/1.4. So I don’t really need a bigger superzoom. But I’m sure it will sell quite well.

  • at1981

    Make a lens from 1 to 1000mm with f/0,1 and 10:1 macro! 🙂

  • thomas

    why all the love for APC, where are the new FF lenses?

    • Calibrator

      There are practically only kit and superzoom lenses for APC, just like this one (the only major exception of recent being the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8).

  • Your Dad

    I pooping

  • Johnny

    This lense will make my DSLR just as wide as my compact superzoom that I normally choose to bring with me when I leave home. I guess that this lense also will give me better image quality than the compact superzoom.
    But for the pro’s that want top quality this lense is not interesting, of course. I wonder how big and heavy it will be.

    • mala

      500 times now: lens, lens, lens……

  • BP2012

    “here is a teaser found on a Polish forum – this will be a serious lens (not the 16-300mm)”

    Why not? That silhouette looks like 16-300mm f/2.8 🙂

    • Johnny

      Yes, that would really be something to write home about 🙂
      But I am afraid that the 16-300 will only be f/6,3 at tele, and that would be dissapointing. At least they could keep it no less than f/5,6.

  • Back to top