Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

I love my 24-120. Very sharp and lighter than the 28-300.

Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

I love my 24-120. Very sharp and lighter than the 28-300.

royden Loc: Decatur, GA

😁😁😁

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I own many Nikon pro lenses. For my amateur needs, the 28-300 is a very useful travel lens.

ksmmike

I have the Tamron 28-300 and used it as a walk around lens for a trip across the UK and Ireland. Like some of the comments above, I was pleased with it until
a recent trip I used my primes more often. If you don't plan on printing anything over 11x14 the Tamron is fine. I took some images with a Nikon 28mm prime
and a Voigtlander 40mm and 58mm, there is a difference. You will have to decide if the difference is enough for you. It's a personal choice, but there is for sure
a difference in quality of images blown up between the Nikon 28-300 (Or Tamron) and prime lenses. For me, it's a big enough difference, for others maybe not.
I don't think most people would see a difference, picky people will.

Mike

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Well said, I agree and it depends on what you are shooting. I like using the Tamron 28-300 at events like a holiday BBQ or church outing where most folks are not going to be picky about the shots, they just want the memories and I have to make really fast adjustments from catching something going on up close to something happening on the game field and I'm there for fun too and don't want to lug a big lens around. For sure when I'm shooting something for my pleasure, like you I use my best lenses but the Tamron 28-300 has a home on my lens shelf. :-)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I use an old 28-105 f3.5-4.5 with my D610, I do not own the 28-300 but a close friend does. I have seen many of his pictures with the lens and the images look great to me.
The 28-300 is a very popular lens and I am sure there are many members here who use it. They should be a good source of information.

whwiden

For a walk around lens on my Nikon D750 if I am in a city setting with narrow streets, etc. on travel I actually prefer the Nikon 24-85mm lens because I find the slightly wider angle useful. Plus, it is a bit sharper and smaller. To be sure, the extra zoom can be useful but I would think about whether you would more often need a wider angle or the extra zoom range.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I've been using the 28~300 for some time now. It's the lens that's on my D800, previously D700, about 95% of the time. The camera goes with me on a daily basis.
--Bob

aellman Loc: Boston MA

The concept of "good enough" is one that is applied in many industries. I'm not saying this solution is for everyone, but I adopt it for my camera gear, and I never feel I'm compromising the quality of my images in any discernable way.I don't examine prints with a 10x loupe and I don't print them mural size. It allows me to have a nice complement of "good enough" gear on a limited budget. No GAS.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I preferred the 18-200 for sharpness and weight. That was a wonderful lens that I first put on my D90 and then moved to three subsequent cameras.

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

I use a 70-300mms as a walk around lenses. Very good quality and sharpness

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

If you are looking for a light weight walkaround FX lense, you might consider the Nikkor AF 28-200 G ED IF. It is half the length and less than half the weight of the 28-300. I am just a snapshooting hobbiest not a pixel peeper or a pro and even though I have a 28-300, I keep the 28-200 on a FX body most of the time unless I need the extra reach. You can Google the 28-200 for some reviews and details. I like mine and it works well for me. My second choice is the Nikkor AF-D 28-105 mm that is about the same size and weight as the 28-200 but can shoot closeups to half lifesize. Good luck with your search. chase

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

18-200

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

My two cents. First, almost any walk-around lens will require some compromise in sharpness at both ends of the spectrum. What you get in return is having just one lens that you have to take with you at times and places where you do not want to be bothered having to change lenses and will allow you to shoot in a variety of conditions. This is no small advantage both in weight and time. The second question is what do you expect to shoot? Again, not a minor question as that will help you decide how much reach you need in a walk-around lens. I am not familiar with the Nikon 28-300 but I've used the Tamron 16-300 as my walk-around lens on my d7100 for several years and am happy with it. I've learned to back off just a bit on each end and it produces quite good pictures for my needs. But for more local or planned photo excursions or really good shots where I could control everything I would probably go with some of the sharper lenses mentioned here.

If I were you and wanted the 300mm reach I would probably try renting the Nikon lens and the Tamron and the Sigma and see which one works best for you. There would be slight differences and good and bad points about each and you could decide which was more compatible with your photo style.