Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Nikon 28-300 or (new) Tamron 70-300
Jul 20, 2017 10:16:51 #
Hi Hoggers,
I'll be going on another European trip in a few months. The last trip there (last year) I brought my Nikon D610 and D800 with 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Needless to say, image quality was stellar. This year I have to take into consideration a back sciatica issue. The 2 bodies and 24-70 would be a no brainer, but my beloved 70-200 2.8 might have to stay home. I have a Nikon 28-300 that does well but can't hold a candle to the latter. The shots I take in Europe I want to be as sharp as possible as previous images have been so, I've been seriously considering the new Tammy 70-300 as the 70-200 2.8 substitute. Impressive reviews, cheaper than the Nikon, and substantially lighter than the 70-200 2.8. I've tried to research comparisons (Nikon 28-300 vs Tamron 70-300) but the results were too vague. Anyone have those 2 lens? Deeply appreciate any input.
Greg
I'll be going on another European trip in a few months. The last trip there (last year) I brought my Nikon D610 and D800 with 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Needless to say, image quality was stellar. This year I have to take into consideration a back sciatica issue. The 2 bodies and 24-70 would be a no brainer, but my beloved 70-200 2.8 might have to stay home. I have a Nikon 28-300 that does well but can't hold a candle to the latter. The shots I take in Europe I want to be as sharp as possible as previous images have been so, I've been seriously considering the new Tammy 70-300 as the 70-200 2.8 substitute. Impressive reviews, cheaper than the Nikon, and substantially lighter than the 70-200 2.8. I've tried to research comparisons (Nikon 28-300 vs Tamron 70-300) but the results were too vague. Anyone have those 2 lens? Deeply appreciate any input.
Greg
Jul 20, 2017 10:23:26 #
Greg, I've been using the 28~300 for almost 3 years. I don't see a problem with the image quality or sharpness. That lens and a 20mm f/2.8 is all I usually carry with me daily.
--Bob
--Bob
Dbl00buk wrote:
Hi Hoggers, br br I'll be going on another Europe... (show quote)
Jul 20, 2017 10:34:55 #
As long as you can live with the slower aperture at the tele end of the range...Personally, I'd stick with the 28-300 Nikkor.
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Jul 20, 2017 10:53:01 #
Dbl00buk wrote:
Hi Hoggers, br br I'll be going on another Europe... (show quote)
I don't have a Nikon, but last Sept. I traveled around Europe with my Tamron 28-300 lens and that's all I needed except for landscape shots with my wide-angle lens.
My experience is, a 28-300 macro is all I have ever needed for a walkabout lens.
Jul 21, 2017 07:06:12 #
One of the problems when traveling is that we usually take with us more photographic gear than we need. Your 28-300 (I do not own that lens) is pretty good and covers a lot of real estate. My retired ophthalmologist has one and it travels often with it. His pictures are great. All you need is a good wide angle, preferably with a large lens opening for your wide angle shots and interiors.
Quality depends more on us than on the lens if you understand what I am saying. Lenses today have exceptional quality but we are still responsible for our images. Good photographic techniques yield excellent photographs regardless of the camera or lens in use.
Quality depends more on us than on the lens if you understand what I am saying. Lenses today have exceptional quality but we are still responsible for our images. Good photographic techniques yield excellent photographs regardless of the camera or lens in use.
Jul 21, 2017 07:11:54 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Dbl00buk wrote:
Hi Hoggers, br br I'll be going on another Europe... (show quote)
Jul 21, 2017 07:15:10 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Dbl00buk wrote:
Hi Hoggers, br br I'll be going on another Europe... (show quote)
Price, Tamron wins, resale value, Nikon wins. Nikon will stay within tolerances better over time than the Tamron. IQ scores favor the Tamron when new but over time Nikon will win out. Overall, Nikon is the winner again.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Jul 21, 2017 07:45:26 #
No, I have prime lenses only. This one lens could probably take most of your photographs. Fast and light.
Jul 21, 2017 08:07:58 #
Dbl00buk wrote:
Hi Hoggers, br br I'll be going on another Europe... (show quote)
I also use the Nikon 28-300 for vacations. It suits me well for that, but at home with other lenses at hand, the 28-300 stays in the bag. I have no experience with the Tamron.
In your shoes, I would stick with the proven 24-70, and 70-200.
Jul 21, 2017 08:32:50 #
I have no experience with the Tamron. But I recently purchased a Nikon 28-300 for everyday use on my D750. I was terribly disappointed with the lens sharpness. I returned the lens and replaced it with a couple of Primes and a 70-200. All of which are quite sharp. Check dxomark.com for lens tests and comparisons.
Jul 21, 2017 09:00:20 #
Dbl00buk wrote:
Hi Hoggers, br br I'll be going on another Europe... (show quote)
If you do not do pro portrait/sports work - and with your health, maybe it is time to ditch the 70-200 2.8 for an f4 version. IMO, ANY xx-300 will be a significant IQ compromise for you and your FF cameras.
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Jul 21, 2017 09:08:12 #
imagemeister wrote:
If you do not do pro portrait/sports work - and with your health, maybe it is time to ditch the 70-200 2.8 for an f4 version. IMO, ANY xx-300 will be a significant IQ compromise for you and your FF cameras.
I use to own that lens - Nikon 70-200 f 4- and I always regretted selling it. Wonderful optics!
Jul 21, 2017 09:14:16 #
Look up a company like borrow lenses rent one and see what you like, no need for the opinions of others when it's based on your likes and dislikes and what you can or cannot carry
Jul 21, 2017 09:17:17 #
Recovering from two back surgeries I have thought about the weight of carrying excess cameras and lenses a lot. My solution was to go to the Nikon 24-85 3.5-4.5 vr and eventually buy the 70-200 f4 vr. With my D810 I can shoot with a higher ISO which makes up for the loss of 2.8. The 24-85 is almost as sharp as my wife's 24-70 but half the weight. From readings the 70-200 f4 is half the weight but as sharp as your 2.8 version. Until I can afford the new 70-200 f4 I use a 70-210 f4 which is very sharp also and so cheap, I bought another f4 70-210 along with its newer but faster focusing brother the f3.5-???. You don't always need 2.8 glass to do the job. My excellent 80-200 2.8 doesn't go on trips as much anymore, but is there if I need to shoot a wedding in the dark.
Jul 21, 2017 10:05:43 #
Lagoonguy
Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL
At only 30 ozs for the Nikon 70-200 f/4 your back would thank you and you would be giving up only one stop. This lens is excellent. I used to travel with an 18-300 on a D7100 and it was great for general use but my wife incorporates my photos in her video/stills DVD's and the quality of this and other low ratio focal length wide aperture lenses are just far superior to the all in one lenses for this purpose. I have two D750s. My compromise with my back has been to use more f/4 lenses. So far the compromise is working. I can say that the 18-300 copy I have does provide very acceptable images but they just are not as good as my other lenses. The Nikon 28-300 weighs 28 ozs and my 18-300 comes in at 29 ozs. Happy trails.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.