Nikon 28-300mm lens vs. Tamron 28-300mm lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by nancy_nafziger, May 26, 2015.

  1. I recently upgraded to a Nikon D750. My last camera had a cropped sensor and I was using a Tamaron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di ii. I really liked it.
    I'm now looking for a similar lens for the D750 full frame. I am considering the Nikon 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 or the Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 lenses.
    I have read that the Nikon takes sharper pictures than the Tamron. However, the Tamron is 1/3 lighter than the Nikon.
    Does anyone have a recommendation?
    Thanks much!
  2. i would recommend not using a superzoom on a $2000 camera if you want to take full advantage of the d750's 24mp full frame sensor's imaging qualities.
  3. "Take full advantage" is pretty subjective. Since the OP really liked the 18-270 on DX, it makes sense to get a similar set-up for the D750. Nobody is going to recommend a superzoom for highest image quality. It is a pricey set-up, but I am guessing a D750 w/ either 28-300 will take respectable images.
    Nancy, I do not have experience with these lenses but I have read good things about both of them. Just in case you do not aware, I have two comments. First, these 28-300 lenses will not give you as much telephoto reach as the 18-270 mm on your crop sensor (270mm on crop sensor is equivalent to something like 400mm on the D750). Second, the Tamron is f/6.3 at the long end versus f/5.6 for the Nikkor. If you can live with f/6.3, the smaller size of the Tamron would be nice. Here is a comparison:,567.314,ha,t
    That shows the Tamron 18-270, but it looks like it is the same length as the 28-300 (3.8").
  4. The image quality is more than acceptable for general use and if you are making typically sized prints at 8 x 10 or smaller. For those with a more critical eye, shooting RAW and processing your images with software that has lens specific corrections such as Photoshop or DXO, the results can actually be quite good all things considered.
    According to the testing on the DXO Mark site, the IQ should be comparable between the two. I have the Nikon lens and am quite happy with it.
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As Eric points out, if you are concerned about optical quality at all, I would avoid super zooms such as the 28-300mm. I have that lens and occasionally use it in casual situations, but it is not sharp on its long end. You are much better off splitting that zoom ranges into a 24-120 and a 70-300mm, for example.
    The Tamron is lighter because it is an f6.3 lens on the 300mm end. As far as I am concerned, 300mm maximum f5.6 is already kind of iffy. You will have a lot of problems with auto focus accuracy with a 300mm, f6.3 lens, especially when it is overcast, dawn or dusk, as well as indoors. If you prefer convenience, Nikon's 28-300mm AF-S VR is an acceptable lens. I am picky such that I am not very happy with its optical performance.
  6. "Take full advantage" is pretty subjective." - Agreed, but if the only lens on the D750 is going to be a superzoom, then pretty much all benefits of getting a full frame camera are nullified. An APS-C camera with that Tamron superzoom will perform pretty much identical - so, in that sense, I also agree with Eric that it's not the "natural" partner for a camera in this price bracket.
    Something like the Nikon 24-85VR combined with the 70-300VR is already a pretty big step up optically, and about the same price as the 28-300VR. If optical qualities are really important, these superzooms aren't the place to be. Maybe the Nikon is a hair sharper than the Tamron, but for lenses as these where convenience is everything, I'd select on the convenience-features: lighter, smaller, cheaper.
    And then I'd get the 24-85 and 70-300 all the same.
  7. the closest thing to a kit lens for the D750 is the 24-120/4 VR, which was bundled with that body and is available at cameta for around $2700. that's a pretty good deal considering the lens sells for $1300 alone. if i was the OP, if it's not too late to send the d750 back, i would consider exchanging it for the package deal with the 24-120 and buying a 70-300 VR with the savings compared to a d750+28-300 (which is about $3k together).
    i'm sorry, i don't mean to be obstinate, but if i wanted convenience over quality, i wouldn't spend $3000 for it. i'm not sure why just a modest upgrade to a more recent crop-body camera like the d7100/d7200 wouldn't have served the OP just as well, except maybe in extreme high-ISO situations (and even there, a fast lens on a DX camera would mitigate the slow variable aperture of the superzoom).
    if it was me buying a d750, im buying that particular body for several reasons: AF capabilities; low-light, maybe to use with fast primes; because i already own some really good FF lenses and want to use them at their native focal lengths; prints in excess of 16x20; maybe video. but i wouldnt expect that 24mp FX would be significantly better than 24mp DX, except if i was printing super-huge. and if i was printing super-huge, i'd prioritize optical quality over convenience. if the OP isn't planning to take full advantage of the D750's capabilities, why not a d610 or the aforementioned d7200? for that matter, if the OP is all about the superzoom, a d7000 might not reveal the flaws of the 18-270 as much as a d7100/d7200 would.
    The image quality is more than acceptable for general use and if you are making typically sized prints at 8 x 10 or smaller.​
    this sort of illustrates the condundrum precisely. if you aren't printing any larger than 8x10, there's no need to go bigger than an APS-C sensor. in fact, even a superzoom point and shoot like the FZ1000 will be "acceptable for general use" at that printing size. again, this is just my personal opinion, but if i'm spending $3000 on camera gear, i want optical performance which is better than acceptable.
  8. Nancy - Eric made some good points about camera choices, but a lot of this discussion is abstract because we do not know much about you. It would be helpful to know more about why you upgraded to the D750. This forum is full of gear heads, and "superzoom" lenses go over like an automatic transmission on a Porsche forum. I think there is nothing wrong with a superzoom as long as the user understands the pros/cons.
    Unfortunately, you might not find a lot of users here with first hand experience with the Nikon or Tamron.
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Please keep in mind that Nancy already has her D750 for a while, at least since March:
    I would imagine that she already has some FX lenses. As I said, I have had the 28-300mm super zoom since it was introduced back in 2010. Its convenience can be unbeatable in some occasions, but as DSLRs gradually go to 24MP for DX and 36MP for FX, I don't use that superzoom much any more, but it can be useful in addition to other lenses that are superior optically. For example, before I got the 80-400 AF-S VR, the 28-300mm was a very good all-around backup lens.
  10. My opinion is that anyone putting a lens like that on an expensive camera like that one should immediately be arrested. ;-)
    Kent in SD
  11. I have read this post with interest, I own both the afore mentioned lens on appropriate DX and FX cameras. I have primes and shorter reach 2.8s. I use these lens camera combinations as walk around combinations only. The ability to go from a relatively wide angle to zooming in on a object at a distance with a single lens is very convenient. They are more then adequate for this type daily photography purposes. Now, to shoot weddings, seniors or any event I use my 70-200 2.8 primarily with both the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 at the ready. In the end it is the type photography you are doing and how you like or dislike results.
  12. I've tried the super zooms over the years and don't care for them, never have. A huge compromise in a field full of compromises already. I honestly would not go this route no matter what body you own. If it's the only lens you have available that's one thing but you are living in the best time ever to be a photographer technically speaking. You can do better for the money.

    Rick H.
  13. I shoot news, sports and magazine for a living. Big, heavy f/2.8 glass for that is irreplaceable.
    When my wife and I travel and hike, superzooms are irreplaceable.
    It's all about picking the right tool for the job.
  14. When you hike or travel, wouldn't a smaller smaller camera with a small but superb lens be a better choice than an expensive D750 with a bulky "Holga-like" lens?
    Kent in SD
  15. The question is what do you want to capture while hiking. If you want some bird in flight images along with landscapes etc. a 28-300mm superzoom may allow some of those subjects to be captured better than a Holga or a small camera with a short, but high quality lens.
    The image quality vs. convenience tradeoff is a matter of degrees, it is not about choosing one or the other, but choosing the right compromise for the situation. A D7100+Tamron 18-270 gets a dxomark score of 13, whereas the D610 + Nikon 28-300 gets a score of 17, a 31% improvement even though the pixel count is the same, 24MP. If you choose the same cameras but with two very high quality telephoto prime lenses (e.g. 200/2 for the D7100, 300/2.8 for the D610), there is much less difference (14%) between DX and FX, this is because both lenses can saturate either sensor with detail but the superzooms can not, and so the latter show a bigger difference between formats in this case. Now, this kind of a comparison may be sensitive to the particular lenses chosen and the metrics used but the salient point is really that generally it is the lesser quality lenses that stand the most to benefit from a move to a larger sensor, whereas if you have an extremely high quality lens, you can get almost the same quality images using DX as FX (here I assume that for both formats the focal length is chosen so that the finished composition is achieved or closely approximated in cameara, and the pixel count should be the same).
    Of course, the quality vs. price relationship may be debated. A superzoom isn't about price (Canon makes a $2450 28-300mm), but about being able to capture a variety of subjects without changing lenses. Whether this is the right approach or not is up to the photographer to decide given the circumstances. Many quite well known professional photographers have used the Nikon 28-300mm as a tool, and the same is true of the Canon 28-300L (which I see sometimes being used by photojournalists at outdoor events where the crowd prevents rapid position changes). I have to assume they generally know what they're doing and are making informed choices. Personally I find there to be enough funny business in the images from 5x zooms, and generally avoid those as well. The narrow range zooms and primes produce cleaner, crispier results (and offer wider apertures/macro/tilt-shift capabilities) but require more effort from the photographer to be in the right place with the right lens at the right time and in some cases more time to set up as well.
    Now, imagine the following scenario. You're photographing an outdoor event and making portraits of the event participants and have set up a stand with flash and modifier to provide some fill light. Your kit basically has you tied into one place and you use a prime lens to reduce background clutter. A tornado appears behind the buildings and appears to hit the large public building next to the square where you're doing your portraits. Your bag has a second camera with a 28-300mm mounted. You grab that camera and capture a sequence of the tornado approaching and hitting that building and a variety of framings showing a close-up as well as framing with more environment, showing the tornado as part of the location. You quickly go on to capture close-ups of the people at the site in shock. How exactly would you approach this kind of a situation with any other lens? I mean sure you could, but since you're carrying your portrait lighting equipment there is less space in your bag for a full range of specialized lenses and there wouldn't have been time to set them up, either. I think for a photojournalist a Nikon 28-300mm is just the type of lens to allow them to document the improbable. If it were probable, they'd have better quality lenses ready. For stuff with high news value, the content of the images are usually more important than sharpness, and in the case of a D750+Nikon 28-300 there is enough of that to print given the right content. And I'm sure the images will show better results than a Holga or an iPhone, given the ability to zoom in on the details that the 28-300 type lens provides, and the mobile phones do not. Apart from storm/extreme weather conditions, examples of difficult environments to shoot in that might call for the use of a superzoom include war photography, shooting from a rocking boat, etc. Another situation is when there is some sudden demonstration in a crowd that you cannot pass through to use a shorter lens to capture.
    Personally I value image quality and have a style where the main subject is cleanly separated from the background; this calls for the use of wide aperture lenses, and I can't really use a superzoom outside of the longest focal lengths to achieve the type of images that I normally prefer. There is also the matter of the long, dark winter that we have in my country, which makes slow lenses difficult to use. However, in the summertime there would not be a problem using a 28-300mm as a lens to account for the improbable, if that were the kind of thing that I wanted to do. I usually focus on my thing and let the others with superzooms capture the improbable. ;-) In fact I have to admit that something unexpected has a tendency to happen quite often, but I can personally live without being prepared for all things at all times. But that's a very personal choice - among the general public I think the ability to capture the unexpected is valued very highly and few people care about the finer aspects of image quality apart from the photographers themselves.
  16. wouldn't a smaller smaller camera with a small but superb lens be a better choice​
    Agreed. My "small" is different from my wife Abby's "small." For most of my travel and adventure imaging, I carry a Nikon D7100 with the Nikkor 18-200 and a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. Great combo - couldn't be happier. Abby, on the other hand, brings just the Fuji HS30EXR, which is much lighter and smaller. When we travel, we're not trying to score the Photo of the Year, we just want to have fun and make pictures along the way.
  17. Ilkka and Richard explained it well. The 28-300mm is a versatile tool, so is the 18-200. If these are the two choices, I would pick the 28-300 for greater convenience.
  18. i really got into photography when i "borrowed" the eos300 and a sigma 28-300 permantly from my dad in 1999.
    sometimes he asks me when he will be getting it back...yeah thats right..i still use it from time to time..
    best thing ever. and yeah, there is no d in it because that was a film camera ...
    concerning the lenschoice:
    the image quality is *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*, on all of those.
    but you can actually do everything with it and that is worth more.
    there is no bad photo because the quality sucks..there are only images that suck, and then those that dont.
    id rather have a not so sharp, maybe even blurred and out of focus cool shot that leaves me with a feeling, emotion, idea, whatever sort of reaction rather than a perfectly fine very well executed image that has no soul.

    buy such a lens as a beginner, having not enough money for a 200-400 (which i do not have either) or you just do not care about distortion and photography is something you use to document your life and of those around you without
    having the need of haveing "real good" equipment.
    the d750 is a real good camera though.
    so naturally i totally agree with kent.
    anyone who puts a lens like that on that camera might be aswell locked away, unless one of the reasons i mentioned
    above is one that is responsable for you wanting to buy this lens.
    if so, you may stay free and enjoy photography.
    if you are a beginner, do not expect the best quality.
    know (!!!) that you will be replacing this lens quite soon and
    use it as a learning tool and go nuts.
    i can also recommend those macro lenses you screw on there using the filter mount.
    my estimate, if youre taking it srsly is that you will have this lens one to two years ( if youre a beginner on a budget and the d750 was a gift)
    if you bought the d750 yourself, do yourself a favour and safe up for better glass.
    it is better to get a cheaper camera and invest more in good lenses than having a pro body and then put a glass of gurks in that mount and expect the camera to be responsible for the was that expensive, wasnt it? ;)

    in that case i would recommend the new 80-400 and a 24-120
    as far as you question recommend the nikkor
    f5.6 @ 300mm beats f63.
    easy as that
  19. Norbert, the Nikon 28-300 (not an old Sigma) is not sh*t and it does not suck. In my beginning film days in the ancient era you mentioned, I had the Tamron 28-300 and the quality was not as good as the Nikon 28-300. Not all 28-300s are created equal.
    Your recommendation of the 80-400 belongs to another category. It is much bigger and heavier. I carry that with a 10-24, 24-70, and the 1.4x and 2x. And I would also throw in a tripod for prolonged flight shots. In this case, the 28-300 is not an appropriate choice.
    Don't mean to contradict you, just want to dispatch more objective info - from my point of view, of course. ;) Hwvr, if budget is a concern, the OP should probably think about a cheaper camera as you recommended.
  20. the image quality is *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*, on all of those​
    I've got some 13x19s hanging on the wall next to me made with the Nikkor 18-200mm on my last hiking trip in March, and they are dazzling. If you know their strengths and limitations, superzooms can rock.
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    With a D750 body, there is a big difference between getting a Nikon 28-300mm AF-S VR for some occasions and using a 28-300mm as you main or even only lens.
    If one is going to use the 28-300mm 90% of the time on a D750, I too would question why you get a D750 to begin with. However, in some casual photography situations, a 28-300mm can make live easier. The ability to move quickly from 28mm to 200mm, 300mm can be great in some situations. However, a super zoom like that is going to have some optical limitations. Distortion is kind of serious at 28mm, it is not that sharp at 300mm .... A 24MP D750 is going to show those limitations when you look closely.
    I bought my 28-300mm AF-S VR shortly before the D7000 was introduced, and I used that combo quite a bit in late 2010. 16MP DX shows that lens' limitation @ 300mm fairly clearly.
  22. A lot of people do not like the super zooms. However, I purchased one when it became available (full price too!) and it is definitely one of my most used lenses. It's heavy, but in essence I'm carrying a bunch of lenses with me when using it. The lens exhibits a hot spot and really bad corner sharpness (if you even want to call it sharpness) when shot wide open. In other words it sucks. However, stop it down one or two stops and I feel it's a pretty good lens. I own a few f/1.4G lenses from Nikon so I'm comparing the lens to those. I think it's a good lens and will continue using it regularly on my D700 and D810. Here are some photos on my flickr page if you're interested: (I think flickr really messed up since all the photos will look terrible since they're enlarged further than the screen resolution and not all photos showed up (sigh))
    I wouldn't get a Tamron. I've heard even worse things about that lens, though, what do I know since I never used it.
  23. Nathan, your images shot with the Nikon superzoom do not suck. :) I have seen "sucky" images shot with more expensive lenses, and I have my share of those.

    Shun, you are a technical guy who tests lenses and measures sharpness, distortion,.... Kudos to you! :) Hwvr, some of us mere mortals don't care so much about these relative differences for general purpose photography as long as the negative aspects are not overwhelming. Technical correctness is one valuable aspect of photography, versatility and convenience can make up the balance to fill one's need. Don't some go out of their way to create distortions (fisheye, lens baby, Photoshop...)? For me, it is comfortable to know that I "can" shoot at 300mm if I want to, knowing that the result would not be as sharp as what can be produced by a wildlife lens, which belongs to a separate category.
    I finally found a travel image shot with the Nikon 28-300mm. I am looking at the camera data and realize the shutter speed was a low 1/25s and I was hand-holding and shooting rather quickly walking along a street in the Philippines. So the unsharpness, if it bothers the perfectionist, might have been my fault. The other data are as noted under the image. I rather like this shot and don't think it sucks as a travel image.
  24. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Hwvr, some of us mere mortals don't care so much about these relative differences for general purpose photography as long as the negative aspects are not overwhelming.​
    Mary, that is fine, but then the question becomes why you are using a $2000 (D750) to $3000 (D800/D810), higher-end, FX-format DSLR in conjunction of a lens that is quite big and over $1000 to achieve mediocre results. As I said, I have had the 28-300mm AF-S VR almost since as soon as it was available, and I use it occasionally. Just like the 18-300mm/f3.5-5.6 DX AF-S VR, it uses 77mm filters, so those are fairly big lenses.
    For those who are not very picky about results, there are much cheaper and certainly smaller alternatives.
    The Tamron version has additional issues. Since it is f6.3, it is smaller than Nikon's 28-300, but then AF performance becomes a question mark. When AF is slow or inaccurate, it'll be very obvious in the results. However, the OP says she previously used a Tamron 18-270mm that is also f6.3 on the long end. So maybe it is not an issue for her.
  25. Have not used the current version of Tamron 28-300mm. Hwvr, I believe the Nikon version is superior, especially in AF speed. Surely it can be matched with a less expensive camera, but she already bought the D750. And surely she can purchase "better" lenses in the future as new need rises. Didn't we all go through that?
    Personally I used the 24-120mm + 70-300mm for a while (must be close to some 15-20 years ago, when the lens first became available), then I bought the Tamron 28-300 when it became available and used it a lot. I am not sure what you mean by "mediocrity". I assume you are only looking at optical quality. To me it is more important to capture the moment and to compose a pleasing photo than obsessing with negligible sharpness here and there and missing the bigger picture. ;-)
    On second thought, it is not a bad idea to begin with the Nikon 24-120 + 70-300. It's just that the 28-300 is my personal preference, and I can see now that others do not agree it's a good choice. To each his/her own. The more important thing is to go out to make good, well composed, images. Any of these lenses will do the job.
  26. Nathan, your images shot with the Nikon superzoom do not suck. :) I have seen "sucky" images shot with more expensive lenses, and I have my share of those.​
    Thanks, Mary. I love lenses, but when I'm on vacation or whatnot and don't want to bother swapping prime lenses I use the 28-300. At that point I try to get as good a photo as I could make with the lens. Sometimes I have winners and sometimes I don't, but at least I got the image I wanted to take.
    Since Shun asked why use a $2k - $3k camera with a $1k superzoom, the answer is convenience. I know I could probably get the same photo as a point and shoot at times, but I like using a DSLR. If I want to drag that heavy sucker around with a lens that's less than satisfactory to most of the photographic community, well, that's my prerogative. I find it pretty flare resistant when shooting into the sun (more so than the nano coated 24mm f/1.4G) and sharp enough for most of my purposes. Here are a couple examples: and
  27. It's like taking your Ferrari on the shopping trip or the school run....
    It'll do it, but if you want to do 150mph on a private road on the way home you can....'cos it's your only car.
    Sure, put a mediocre superzoom on your D750 and it'll get what it gets...however, put your Sigma 35mm 1.4 on a tripod in the Scottish glens when the sun breaks through the mist and you'll do just fine.
    The OP's question of which is 'better' is still completely valid... I just don't know the answer!
  28. Nathan, your new link does not open.
    Mike, the Nikon 28-300mm optical quality probably does not compare to the 24-70 or 70-200, but it is not a mediocre consumer lens. On the other hand, I have seen many mediocre images shot by expensive lenses. ;-)
  29. probably does not compare to the 24-70 or 70-200, but it is not a mediocre consumer lens​
    Well it certainly isn't a professional or even a prosumer lens. What it might be is the best consumer lens in that range, ie better than a Sigma or Tamron or whatever. Although if you go's not pretty reading.
    A superzoom, by it's very nature, is a compromise but for sure you can take acceptable pix with it. But there are no excellent ones. If they were that good, we'd all be using one rather than carry 2 or 3 lenses to cover the same range. But they're not. It's a simple question of convenience versus quality. For some uses convenience wins hands down every time.
    The phrase 'Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of Non' fits nicely.
    I might change my mind when I get older with a bad back and a sore neck..but not yet!
  30. all depends on what you are used to and what you aiming for...
    the last time i mounted a 28-300 on my camera i had the feeling i was looking through a thick glass and beeing really drunk.
    there is no point in argueing over it..those lenses are not there for their optical quality.
    they are for people who want the convience of the 28-300 without changing lenses.
    as far as you two choices go, take the nikkor, f5.6 is better than 6.3 at the long end it is noticable.
    do not argue about image quality.
    it sucks.
    the shot you posted taken with a d800..well it is a nice photo, but the quality..........
    why put a lens like that on a camera like that and then say it is fine.
    it obviously isnt.
    noone else will tell you this out of respect.
    i dont care.
    f 16 and image quality...sigh..
    take the nikkor and dnt argue wether or not the image quality is good. hurts..
    to be honest..if i had the choice between a 50 1.8g and a 28-300 i would go with the 50 10 times out of 10 without even thinking about it.
    this discussion is as pointless as a 28-300 lens
  31. the last time i mounted a 28-300 on my camera i had the feeling i was looking through a thick glass and beeing really drunk.​
    You said you tried an ancient Sigma 28-300 lens in the old film day era, right? IMO, you should bring yourself uptodate before spewing serious derogatory comments about a current Nikon lens (not 3rd party lens) that you have never owned and never tried.. Otherwise it's just an irresponsible comment. Sorry.
    It's been said again and again, on this thread alone, by people who have had experience with more lenses than you do, that, while the Nikon 28-300 (not an old Sigma of ancient era) is not the best lens in town - and it does not pretend to be, it is a decent consumer grade lens. I believe it is a very reasonable compromise.
  32. Think this is a better example - using a tripod.
    The previous example was handheld at 1/25s - yikes.
  33. I like the concept of superzoom lenses because scenes can and do change rapidly and to able to get right in with the action at 300mm and then pull back to 28mm to get the crowd reaction is a very useful feature. However my main complaint about such lenses is the optical calibration (decentring). Due to less than perfect assembly, parts of the image can be quite soft at certain focal lengths. I have the Nikon 28-200mm G ED and I know that at around 120mm I need to use f/16 to get rid of a soft area in the left hand side of the image. I see similar 'patchy' softness in magazines and other peoples enlargements with images taken with such lenses. But as long as the buyer understands how their lens works for them by reviewing their work then it is possible to extract some really great images from them.
  34. that shot looks like taken with a go pro. haha
    just kidding.
    however, it is not proof that the lens is good.
    idk where you get that idea.
    i did however end up using certain superzooms over the last couple of years as i wanted to see what theyre like.
    i even borrowed one for a day..
    ofc they are better as they had been in 1999, but far from good..and i already saw that as a
    16 year old teenager using film.
    so why are you argueing..i dnt get it.
    as you obviously already used the nikkor, why bother asking what you should go for.#
    as i said before, and has been pointed out several times already:
    superzooms are convinient.
    they lack sharpness, it is a huge compromise ofc.
    get the nikkor, f5.6 over 6.3
    ilford hp5
    canon eos 300
    sigma 28-300
    taken in 1999 or 2k
    one of the last shots i took with a super zoom ;)
    obvious distortion in this shot was froms canning.
    i didnt do that myself backthen..and this is what you get..well..

    linked from my tumblr:
  35. Norbert, people are going to have different opinions and preferences with regards to optics. You cannot make other people change their mind about something. Usually people are sincere in their reports and give a honest account of their experiences. The differences arise mostly because people have different application requirements and expectations regarding the results. Some optical effect in a lens which one photographer doesn't like at all doesn't bother another in the slightest. This is just the way it is; you cannot make absolute standards of what is good and what is not good that would work for all photographers.
    I remember in one of Joe McNally's books where he was stuck in a distant position at an event involving the Pope and he had to stack a 2X and 1.4X converter on top of each other to get some shots. The results may not have been quite as crisp as they might have been from a closer position but the resulting image of a nun with her hands in front of her face communicated the nun's reverence and emotion of the situation very well, and the technical quality was good enough for print. I imagine it was not too different from what might have been captured with a superzoom (except the focal length which was probably >1000mm). Today one can't stack (E-series) Nikon TCs but cropping has become a viable option so there is less need to such extreme measures. What is important is that he got the shots that he needed despite the circumstances because he was more concerned with the content than getting the best technical quality. Which is typically the case with the clients or people who use and view the images. It is the photographers who suffer from being obsessed with the technical quality of the image (rather than the content). I imagine some wildlife photographers that post on would be outraged if someone recommended stacking 2x and 1.4x converters to get a shot. ;-)
    Personally I don't much care for extended range zooms (I've used some 5x ones and I find them not able to consistently deliver the kind of result that I would like to have) but I have high respect for those photographers who do get the shots (irrespective of tools) and don't obsess about the image quality beyond what is needed. I typically get the shots that I plan for (in fact I do a great deal of planning for my event photography, both in terms of expected visual results and positioning if there are large crowds it is necessary to be in the right place at the right time), but sometimes I'm not ready to get some other shots. E.g. some years ago I was shooting the night of the arts in Helsinki and the city center was full of people, so movement was restricted. I used a 24-70/2.8 to get some shots of people watching the show (there was a performance which included huge colourful balloons of various shapes) and musicians performing some side acts. However, I didn't really capture the balloons in an optimal way. I think someone using a wider range zoom with VR could have compensated for the restricted mobility on the ground and gotten better shots of the whole story. If the mission is to tell the story in a set of images, then it might have been better to use a superzoom instead of a narrow range zoom. Similarly, a few days ago I was on a sailing trip and there was 9m/s headwind and it was raining quite a bit. Now, to cover both the people and activities on board, a wide angle is needed, and to get shots of the other boats participating in the informal race, a longer lens is useful. Because of the rain it is prudent to use a rain cover on the camera, and then it becomes a bit problematic to change lenses. In this situation I think the use of a 28-300mm mounted on the camera inside the rain cover would probably have been the best compromise, but I used a 24-70 and didn't get shots of the other boats except when they were side by side. Whether this is acceptable coverage is entirely subjective. I think for the people involved in the sailing the difference in image quality would probably have been immaterial, so it can be argued that it is a mistake to go by the photographer's personal preference if it is against the best interests of the people whose activities are being documented. Personally I would like to see Nikon make more lenses for the 1 AW1 rugged/underwater camera as currently there is no ruggedized/waterproof tele available for that camera. If one mounts the 10-100mm on the camera it is no longer waterproof. I can understand that in water, short lenses are normally used because of limited visibility underwater, but for other applications above water it would be useful. Of course a DSLR with typical lenses designed for photojournalistic applications can take a bit of rain but if the rain is heavy a cover should be used.
    Personally I have no plans on acquiring a 28-300 for my own use as I can afford to miss some shots and people will understand the compromises involved; usually I still get good coverage of the events and especially of the emotions and spirit of the people. A literal coverage of the events and detailed storyline may not be needed if the spirit of the events is well documented.
  36. well you are right and i am not saying this.
    it just drives me mad when ppl are obsessed with the optical "quality" of whatever.
    it is generalized hate against that, not only twoards super zooms.
    to what you said, you are right.
    recently, due to the loss of the 16-35 i was forced to use the 24-70 more often.
    not too happy.
    my way to go is two cameras.
    one wioth a 16-35, one with the 70-200.
    i then carry a lensbag with the 24-70 and a bag with a sb910 around my shoulder, just in case.
    try the 16-35, 70-200 combo ;)
    i posted a photo taht is not sharp or without distortion to make my point clear. didnt get my drift there...but well... ;)
    doesnt matter
  37. Ilkka again gave a balanced explanation.
    Norbert, as you should know, at least by now, I was not saying that the Nikon 28-300mm is the best lens in town. What really got me was the demeaning and arrogant way you bashed it, something like "it's sh*t. Period" or was it "it sucks. Period"? You were so dogmatic and, not only that, you based your sucky allegations on a [probably one time only] experience with an old outdated Sigma 28-300 lens on a Nikon body. You haven't even owned or tested the Nikon version. That was laughable, irresponsible, and your attitudes were not palatable. You should not "advise" anyone about a specific lens when someone asked about it when you don't own it have not not even tested it. If you had said, instead, that it does not have very good reviews and something to that effect, and cautioned the OP about it, as most responsible people do, then it would have been more acceptable.
  38. try the 16-35, 70-200 combo ;)
    I have used superwide angle zooms in the past and they're not a good fit for me. I do find them useful for architectural interior photography (especially the 14-24), but I don't like the strong exaggerated perspective for subjects involving people or landscape and prefer to use the 24-70. Too often with the superwide angle zoom, I zoom out to too short focal lengths and end up with images that I do not like. But this again is a question of individual style and preference.
  39. Mary: I agree with your point of view and find the combination camera/ lens that you choose less important than the satisfaction you get from the results. One of the contributors has managed to annoy me too in form and content in a former post.
  40. Ilkka I agree. Depends on what one is shooting, one chooses the most appropriate tool. No one lens is suitable for every requirement. For example, Norbert should not have used a superzoom for the image he showed (and then used this example to denounce all superzooms). That image is not the everyday thing for most people. Not only should he not use a fisheye or the lens baby or a superzoom, he should find the most distortion-free lens for this purpose. If he had not thought of that, he should have seen the problem via the viewfinder before wasting all that time and effort for himself and for his model. This is a puzzlement.
    If one is doing professional work, one should probably use pro equipment, at least for the bulk of the photography.
    Btw, the Nikon 28-300mm is rather sharp on most ranges except at the long end. I have also experimented with the Nikon 18-300mm, which I find acceptable and pleasing for general purposes except at the very long end. So, like the 28-300, one should not make the user-error of buying it for shooting wildlife or for images that demand strict perspective accuracy. Btw, most lenses have some degree of distortion issue.
    On the whole, I like the 24-70mm the best. It seems always reliable for most purposes, and I can snuck it into my pocket book. I regret the 80-400 is a bit big and heavy to pair with it for regular use. In this situation a superzoom comes to mind (here we go again).
    Borgis, I understand what you mean. ;)
  41. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    First of all, I should apologize to Nancy Nafziger. I am not sure that we are answering her question, and most likely some of the heated debate here and negative comments are turning people off.
    I'll point out again that Nancy has already had her D750 for a few months. While I have no additional information, it seems unlikely that a 28-300mm zoom would be her first lens for the D750. If one buys a 24MP, 36MP DSLR and only has one lens in a superzoom, I too would wonder about the wisdom of such purchase. However, if a 28-300 is among one of several (or many) lenses one has, and it is for more casual usage, I don't see any issue at all.
    Previously I had the opportunity to use a Nikon 18-200mm/f3.5-5.6 DX AF-S VR (that is 200mm DX), and frankly that is a rather poor lens on the long end, on any DX body with 12MP and up:
    Later on, back in 2010, I bought the 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (that is the lens in question on this thread), mainly based on positive comments from Bjorn Rorslett and Bob Krist:
    While it is clear that the 28-300mm AF-S VR is much improved from the rather poor 18-200mm DX, I am not as enthusiastic as Bob and Bjorn about it. After a while, I found out that I simply cannot get really sharp wildlife images with the 28-300 on the 16MP D7000. Incidentally Bob Krist has since switched camp to Sony mirrorless.
    Because of this thread, in the last few days I pulled out the 28-300mm AF-S VR and used it on the D750 (which Nancy the OP has) and the D7200. Once again, for a 11x super zoom, this lens is surprisingly good. As expected, the distortion is serious, but that is correctable in post processing. At 300mm, sharpness is acceptable; it is clearly inferior to the 80-400mm AF-S VR and the earlier 300mm/f4 AF-S (the earlier, non-PF version), but it is not mushy as the 18-200mm DX @ 200mm. Again, if this is your only lens on a D750 or D800/D810, I would wonder why you are using a high-end DSLR in the first place. As a lens for the occasional, casual usage, it is not bad.
    BTW, has reviewed the Nikon 28-300mm AF-S VR, and they are very negative about it, similar to norbert wabnig:
    My personal opinion is probably somewhere in between Bjorn Rorslett and
  42. mary..this is not a model...
    if mary and borgis do not like my tone, well. thats too bad, really.
    i am very sad now.
  43. I think this whole post should be deleted to the dust bin. Though the OP was valid.
  44. if mary and borgis do not like my tone, well. thats too bad, really.
    i am very sad now.​
    Norrbert, no hard feelings. I believe you were just trying to be helpful, in your own way - though misguided in some aspect, according to me. Hahaha!
  45. okay, cool
    i see we understand each other :))
    all good

Share This Page