Tamron 18-270 vs. 28-300

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by laurie_knowlton|3, Jan 16, 2011.

  1. I am debating between the Tamron 18-270 vs. the 28-300 for a lightweight every day lens to be used on my Nikon D90 or D3100.
    I would love to get feedback.
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    On a DX-format body, definitely get a general zoom that starts around 18mm. 28mm is not very wide on DX.
    If a lens is not long enough, you can always crop. Cropping is not ideal but you can still get the image you want. When a lens is not wide enough (i.e. too long), you are essentially stuck.
    However, something that starts from 18mm and ends at 270mm is beyond extreme.
  3. Hi Laurie,
    As Shun suggests. 18-270 is the better range for a crop camera. I have this Tamron lens... I use it for travel when I do not want to take heavy gear with me (I'm mostly shooting primes...) I am more pleased with this lens than with Nikon 18-200VR. IMHO Tamron is sharper, at least in the center of the frame is very sharp and stopped down to f8 is sharp from corner to corner. In low light sometime is hunting but not very bad to disappoint me. I'd recommend to look for the last version of this lens, that one with PZD focus motor... it's AF performance is better and it is smaller and lightweight than the previous version.
  4. Superzoom and lightweight;)
  5. Leslie, believe me or not but Tamron 18-270mm VC PZD is a superzoom weighting only 450g... exactly like Nikon 16-85 which is a common all-round lens. Even Nikon 18-200mm is heavier (520g).
  6. My bad, I forgot to go into nikon mode, Mihai. FWIW, I have been using my recent sony. My lenses is 67g, I think...So, it all depends on what equipment you are used to. Maybe I should bring out to my nikon and get a workout but the weather here isn't all that great just yet...
  7. an everyday zoom which starts at 28mm on DX is only practical if a) you already have a wideangle such as 12-24 or 10-24; b) you dont mind switching lenses, which kind of defeats the purpose of a superzoom in the first place; andc) if you have both FX and DX cameras and want a convenience lens you can use on both formats. another thing to consider is the 28-300 is designed for FF cameras--specifically the d700--and, being long and heavy, wont balance all that well on a d90 and especially a d3100. however, the 28-300 will have better IQ on DX than FX.
    i think you'd be better off with the 18-270, although f/6.3 at the long end is outside of what nikon recommends for optimal AF performance. havent heard reports of AF failure, but i wouldnt expect miracles in low light conditions.
  8. I have an older version of Tamron's 18-270 that I use for my general purpose lens. It probably stays on my D300 90% of the time. While in low light situations the autofocus can have problems you can always switch to manual focus to do the deed. I also have an early version of the Tamron 28-300 from my film days and I would agree that the 28 mm isn't quite wide enough on a crop format camera. I did use it for over a year on a D100 and found myself occasionally frustrated by its relatively narrow field of view at 28mm.
  9. My wife uses the 28-300 version on her D90 as her everyday walk-around lens. She is a birder and prefers the longer reach of the 28-300. It balances well on her camera. The lens is sharp and she has taken many great pictures.

Share This Page