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

[nathan_wong2]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. <br>

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: https://flic.kr/p/qU1aZm and https://flic.kr/p/qUDkts</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>It's like taking your Ferrari on the shopping trip or the school run....</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The OP's question of which is 'better' is still completely valid... I just don't know the answer!</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Nathan, your new link does not open.</p>

<p>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. ;-)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>probably does not compare to the 24-70 or 70-200, but it is not a mediocre consumer lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 here...it's not pretty reading.<br>

http://www.lenstip.com/272.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_28-300_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html</p>

<p>A superzoom, by it's very nature, is a compromise but for sure you <em>can</em> take acceptable pix with it. But there are no excellent ones. If they were<em> that</em> 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. </p>

<p>The phrase 'Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of Non' fits nicely.</p>

<p>I might change my mind when I get older with a bad back and a sore neck..but not yet!</p>

[5711]

<p>well..it all depends on what you are used to and what you aiming for...<br /> 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.<br /> there is no point in argueing over it..those lenses are not there for their optical quality.</p>

<p>they are for people who want the convience of the 28-300 without changing lenses.</p>

<p>as far as you two choices go, take the nikkor, f5.6 is better than 6.3 at the long end it is noticable.<br /> do not argue about image quality.<br /> it sucks.<br /> period.<br /> the shot you posted taken with a d800..well it is a nice photo, but the quality..........<br /> why put a lens like that on a camera like that and then say it is fine.<br /> it obviously isnt.<br /> noone else will tell you this out of respect.<br /> i dont care.<br /> f 16 and image quality...sigh..</p>

<p>so<br /> 28-300</p>

<p>take the nikkor and dnt argue wether or not the image quality is good.<br /> jeez..it hurts..</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>this discussion is as pointless as a 28-300 lens</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <strong>Nikon</strong> lens (not 3rd party lens) that you have never owned and never tried.. Otherwise it's just an irresponsible comment. Sorry.</p>

<p>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 <strong>consumer grade</strong> lens. I believe it is a very reasonable compromise.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Think this is a better example - using a tripod. </p>

<p>The previous example was handheld at 1/25s - yikes.</p><div></div>

[Ian Rance]

<p>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.</p>

[5711]

<p>that shot looks like taken with a go pro. haha<br /> just kidding.<br /> however, it is not proof that the lens is good.<br /> idk where you get that idea.<br /> i did however end up using certain superzooms over the last couple of years as i wanted to see what theyre like.<br /> i even borrowed one for a day..<br /> ofc they are better as they had been in 1999, but far from good..and i already saw that as a <br /> 16 year old teenager using film.<br /> so why are you argueing..i dnt get it.<br /> as you obviously already used the nikkor, why bother asking what you should go for.#<br /> as i said before, and has been pointed out several times already:<br /> superzooms are convinient.<br /> they lack sharpness, it is a huge compromise ofc.<br /> get the nikkor, f5.6 over 6.3</p>

<p>enjoy<br /> cheers</p>

<p>edit:<br /> ilford hp5<br /> canon eos 300<br /> sigma 28-300<br /> taken in 1999 or 2k<br /> one of the last shots i took with a super zoom ;)<br>

obvious distortion in this shot was froms canning.<br>

i didnt do that myself backthen..and this is what you get..well..<br /> <br />linked from my tumblr: http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/<br /> <img src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/ef0b2cd8c87af4006173fc92b3049987/tumblr_n9iubbKI3r1tipmvdo2_400.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /></p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 photo.net would be outraged if someone recommended stacking 2x and 1.4x converters to get a shot. ;-)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[5711]

<p>well you are right and i am not saying this.<br /> it just drives me mad when ppl are obsessed with the optical "quality" of whatever.<br /> it is generalized hate against that, not only twoards super zooms.</p>

<p>to what you said, you are right.<br /> recently, due to the loss of the 16-35 i was forced to use the 24-70 more often.<br /> not too happy.<br /> my way to go is two cameras.<br /> one wioth a 16-35, one with the 70-200.<br /> i then carry a lensbag with the 24-70 and a bag with a sb910 around my shoulder, just in case.</p>

<p>try the 16-35, 70-200 combo ;)</p>

<p>edit:<br>

btw:<br /> i posted a photo taht is not sharp or without distortion to make my point clear. didnt get my drift there...but well... ;)<br>

doesnt matter</p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Ilkka again gave a balanced explanation.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>try the 16-35, 70-200 combo ;)</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>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.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>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.</p>

<p>If one is doing professional work, one should probably use pro equipment, at least for the bulk of the photography.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>Borgis, I understand what you mean. ;)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, I should apologize to <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8622952">Nancy Nafziger</a>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Previously I had the opportunity to use a Nikon 18-200mm/f3.5-5.6 DX AF-S VR (that is <strong>200mm DX</strong>), and frankly that is a rather poor lens on the long end, on any DX body with 12MP and up: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP<br /> 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: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X75W<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>BTW, photozone.de has reviewed the Nikon 28-300mm AF-S VR, and they are very negative about it, similar to <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=790061">norbert wabnig</a>: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=2<br /> My personal opinion is probably somewhere in between Bjorn Rorslett and photozone.de</p>

[5711]

<p>mary..this is not a model...</p>

<p>if mary and borgis do not like my tone, well. thats too bad, really.<br>

i am very sad now.</p>

<p> </p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I think this whole post should be deleted to the dust bin. Though the OP was valid.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>if mary and borgis do not like my tone, well. thats too bad, really.<br />i am very sad now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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! </p>

[5711]

<p>okay, cool</p>

<p>i see we understand each other :))<br>

all good</p>