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

<p>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. <br>

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. <br>

I have read that the Nikon takes sharper pictures than the Tamron. However, the Tamron is 1/3 lighter than the Nikon.<br>

Does anyone have a recommendation?<br>

Thanks much!<br>

Nancy</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"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. </p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>http://camerasize.com/compact/#567.329,567.314,ha,t</p>

<p>That shows the Tamron 18-270, but it looks like it is the same length as the 28-300 (3.8"). </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"<em>Take full advantage" is pretty subjective."</em> - 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.<br>

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.<br>

And then I'd get the 24-85 and 70-300 all the same.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The image quality is more than acceptable for general use and if you are making typically sized prints at 8 x 10 or smaller.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, you might not find a lot of users here with first hand experience with the Nikon or Tamron. </p>

<p>Please keep in mind that Nancy already has her D750 for a while, at least since March: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dBkj<br /> 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.</p>

<p>My opinion is that anyone putting a lens like that on an expensive camera like that one should immediately be arrested. ;-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

<p>I shoot news, sports and magazine for a living. Big, heavy f/2.8 glass for that is irreplaceable.<br>

When my wife and I travel and hike, <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/04/07/the-long-and-the-short-of-it-superzooms/">superzooms</a> are irreplaceable.<br>

It's all about picking the right tool for the job.</p>

<p>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? </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>wouldn't a smaller smaller camera with a small but superb lens be a better choice</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/10/28/traveling-cameras-and-how-i-use-them/">Great combo</a> - couldn't be happier. Abby, on the other hand, brings just the Fuji <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2013/04/13/trial-by-trail-the-fujifilm-hs30exr/">HS30EXR</a>, which is much lighter and smaller. <a href="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/">When we travel</a>, we're not trying to score the Photo of the Year, we just want to have fun and make pictures along the way.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>i really got into photography when i "borrowed" the eos300 and a sigma 28-300 permantly from my dad in 1999.<br /> sometimes he asks me when he will be getting it back...yeah thats right..i still use it from time to time..<br /> best thing ever. and yeah, there is no d in it because that was a film camera ...</p>

<p>concerning the lenschoice:<br /> the image quality is shit, on all of those.<br /> but you can actually do everything with it and that is worth more.<br /> there is no bad photo because the quality sucks..there are only images that suck, and then those that dont.<br /> 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.</p>

<p><br /> 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<br /> having the need of haveing "real good" equipment.</p>

<p>the d750 is a real good camera though.<br /> so naturally i totally agree with kent.</p>

<p>anyone who puts a lens like that on that camera might be aswell locked away, unless one of the reasons i mentioned<br /> above is one that is responsable for you wanting to buy this lens.</p>

<p>if so, you may stay free and enjoy photography.</p>

<p>if you are a beginner, do not expect the best quality.<br /> know (!!!) that you will be replacing this lens quite soon and<br /> use it as a learning tool and go nuts.<br /> i can also recommend those macro lenses you screw on there using the filter mount.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>if you bought the d750 yourself, do yourself a favour and safe up for better glass.</p>

<p>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 quality..it was that expensive, wasnt it? ;)<br /> <br />in that case i would recommend the new 80-400 and a 24-120</p>

<p>as far as you question goes..id recommend the nikkor</p>

<p>f5.6 @ 300mm beats f63.<br /> easy as that</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the image quality is shit, on all of those</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've got some 13x19s hanging on the wall next to me made with the Nikkor 18-200mm on <a href="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/2015/04/10/off-the-map-april-2015/">my last hiking trip in March</a>, and they are dazzling. If you know their strengths and limitations, superzooms can rock.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjvZBbr6 (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))<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> <br />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.</p>

<p>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.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>For those who are not very picky about results, there are much cheaper and certainly smaller alternatives.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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. ;-)</p>

<p>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.</p>