Lens shopping: Tamron vs Nikon 28-300

Hi all,

 

After many years of use, I finally need to retire my Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6. It's a DX lens, and I've now moved entirely to FX, plus the poor thing is just worn out.

 

It looks like I have two current options for an FX replacement:

 

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

 

or

 

Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD

 

Any advice on which one? I realize that it's unlikely anyone owns both lenses, but I'd be interested in any opinions about either lens.

 

The difference in the f5.6 to f/6.3 isn't really a deal breaker for me with this lens. I do see that the Nikon model is quite a bit heavier and has a larger 77mm front element. The Nikon is also quite a bit more expensive.

A question, not a challenge: Why do you use an all-in-one zoom in the first place?

I can't say I have either - I used an old 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G a lot on my D700, but it doesn't hold up very well on a D8x0 body, so I gave up on it. (As it turns out, DxO recovers the images quite well, so I may have been premature, but I doubt it's going to be all that hot even then.)

 

Which body do you have? Acceptable on a D6x0 or D750 may not be the same as acceptable on a D850.

 

I'm assuming you're expecting to compromise optically for convenience and we can't suggest, say, a combination between a 24-70 (the older Tamron one is pretty good) and the latest 70-300?

Thanks for the replies, it's helpful.

 

I do a lot of hiking in wooded and rural areas (fields, forests, etc...) and an all-in-one zoom is very enjoyable to use for these hikes. I never know what I'm going to see or photograph on these occasions, so having a single (and fairly lightweight) lens for all focal lengths works well.

 

For serious work, the 70-200 f2.8 is my main lens, along with a 105mm macro. However, I naturally occasionally have a need to shoot wide angles for work, too. In those instances, my old 18-200 worked fine, because it was actually very sharp, especially at the wide end. One photo from my 18-200 taken during one of my hikes actually ended up as a magazine cover. Naturally, I would be somewhat disappointed if the new lens wasn't equally as sharp, but perhaps that's wishful thinking.

 

So my thought here is to get a new all-in-one zoom as the hiking lens, and occasionally use it for wide angle serious work. Hope that makes sense. Both of my cameras are 24 megapixels.

I have had & used the 28-300 Nikon lens on FX cameras for some years, though not my favorite, to your point, very convenient when operating with a single camera & lens, particularly in the wide open spaces. It generally delivers good results, sometimes excellent. Several times over the decades, I have bought lenses other than Nikon - they always disappoint, and are traded along. On the flip side, I still have most of the Nikon lenses I've bought, and the majority, still in use. There are very good other brand lenses for Nikon, but my personal opinion is that, at least with Nikon, their lenses work best with their cameras. Many others with current experience using other brand lenses with Nikon certainly seem pleased with them and will contribute their experiences as well. End of the day, a lot is subjective. Best of Luck with your choice!

I have the Nikkor 28-300mm AF-S VR, and it is a very decent lens for a super zoom, which always has its limitations. Personally I wouldn't buy a lens whose maximum aperture is slower than f5.6.

For what it's worth, I believe the general consensus is that on any high-ish megapixel body, the 18-200 is a blurry mess. Which doesn't mean you can't take a good photo with it, or process the image well. (My 28-200 certainly wasn't to be used wide open.) So I wouldn't worry about the 28-300 lenses being worse.

 

The Nikkor is, by all accounts, perfectly decent on a 24MP body, although I'd expect you to see the difference from your 70-200. It's not all that small, though. I'm afraid all I'd be doing with the other lens is checking reviews. :-)

daniel_johnson|6, I have the 28-300 Nikkor. It is a nice walk around lens that I use hand held.

Image quality wise 28-300 zooms have compromises that are more noticeable compared to pro quality glass if you shoot from a tripod to obtain critical sharpness.

I just purchased my first ever Tamron lens a 100-400 and have been generally very happy with the image quality though like the Tamron 28-300 it is slower at f 6.3 on the long end. I agree with Shun about the 5.6 aperture. I never had a lens that slow before and appreciate the limitations the more I use it. For that reason and even though it cost quite a bit more I would go with the Nikkor rather than the Tamron. Good hunting.

I’ve been using the 28-300 Nikon on my D800 for several years. I do a lot of hiking and it is vey nice to have a general-purpose lens that is certainly very fine quality. Although I also own and highly regard the 70-200 f/2.8, the 105 f/2.8 macro and the 14-24 f/2.8, I seldom have anything to complain about on the 28-300: Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

In a world where iPhones are making images for magazine covers the 28-300 seems a hell of a lens. As for your other question, for a long time now I have stuck with Nikon lenses because the company appears to design forward with their legacy glass in mind. They don’t care so much about 3rd party offerings.