Nikon 28-300mm VR for a walkabout lens.

B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Here we go again. I had this problem settled with my D7100 when I purchased the 18-140mm lens. Greatest thing for a DX body since auto bracketing.
Now I find myself with the same dilemma on the FX side.

I have the 70-300mm VR lens which is a fantastic piece of glass for me. However there are two things that are wrong with it. It doesn't cover enough on the wide side, and the close focus distance is dismal at almost 5 feet.

The problem really hit me this weekend at the botanical gardens. Constantly changing back and forth from the 20mm to the 70-300mm, and even the 50mm.
Oh look! What a beautiful dragonfly!! Oh crap, I have the 20mm on. Let's hurry up and change the lens before the thing flies off. Even then when I had the right lens on, the closest focus distance is at 5 feet.

Anyway, I'm thinking of replacing my 70-300 with the 28-300mm. It has a close focus of 1.5 feet at all lengths, plus it will give me the much needed wider side without having to switch lenses as often.

I will still keep the 20mm because let's face it. That is one kickass sweet wide angle piece of glass.

So, what do you guys think? Anyone used the 28-300mm and has anything to say, whether positive or negative?
 
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I have the Tamron version of the 28-300 and find it situationally extremely useful when changing lenses might be inconvenient (e.g. guided tours, quick family snaps) or challenging (e.g. while visiting the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor where you are not allowed to bring a bag (link) or while in a helicopter over Volcanoes National Park (link)).

When I had my D300 I used a 18-200 in a similar manner. I had to take a quick trip to Paris, Vienna and Bratislava (in 6 days!) for work and didn't have room for a full kit so I brought just this lens.

Personally I am very happy to be able to have this type of lens available when I need it.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
The Tamron is f6.3 and the Nikon is f5.6 but it is a couple hundred dollars cheaper. At those numbers probably better to stick with the Nikon?
Click to expand...
Yes I was thinking the same. The Sigma is also a 6.3 on the longer side. I was just reading something interesting however. Even at 1.5 feet close focus distance, 300mm will not be a true 300mm. Something to do about physics . I fell asleep after reading the word "physics"
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Eduard said:
I have the Tamron version of the 28-300 and find it situationally extremely useful when changing lenses might be inconvenient (e.g. guided tours, quick family snaps) or challenging (e.g. while visiting the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor where you are not allowed to bring a bag (link) or while in a helicopter over Volcanoes National Park (link)).

When I had my D300 I used a 18-200 in a similar manner. I had to take a quick trip to Paris, Vienna and Bratislava (in 6 days!) for work and didn't have room for a full kit so I brought just this lens.

Personally I am very happy to be able to have this type of lens available when I need it.
Click to expand...

Thank you Eduard. I appreciate your input.
 
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
A couple other things to consider besides price regarding the Tamron PZD versus Nikon. I wanted it convenient which meant light (1.19 lb versus 1.76 lb) and small (2.93" x 3.78" versus 3.26" x 4.5"; 67mm versus 77mm filter). I just checked minimal focus distance too: 19.3" versus 1.64'. These specs plus a killer price (I bought mine used) made the Tamron a winner for me.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Eduard said:
A couple other things to consider besides price regarding the Tamron PZD versus Nikon. I wanted it convenient which meant light (1.19 lb versus 1.76 lb) and small (2.93" x 3.78" versus 3.26" x 4.5"; 67mm versus 77mm filter). I just checked minimal focus distance too: 19.3" versus 1.64'. These specs plus a killer price (I bought mine used) made the Tamron a winner for me.
Click to expand...

The size/weight would make a big difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Eduard said:
A couple other things to consider besides price regarding the Tamron PZD versus Nikon. I wanted it convenient which meant light (1.19 lb versus 1.76 lb) and small (2.93" x 3.78" versus 3.26" x 4.5"; 67mm versus 77mm filter). I just checked minimal focus distance too: 19.3" versus 1.64'. These specs plus a killer price (I bought mine used) made the Tamron a winner for me.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much identical focus distance. However the weight and size does make a big difference. How did you find the IQ? If I get as sharp shots as I do with my Nikon 70-300VR than I would be happy with it.
 
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
Eduard said:
A couple other things to consider besides price regarding the Tamron PZD versus Nikon. I wanted it convenient which meant light (1.19 lb versus 1.76 lb) and small (2.93" x 3.78" versus 3.26" x 4.5"; 67mm versus 77mm filter). I just checked minimal focus distance too: 19.3" versus 1.64'. These specs plus a killer price (I bought mine used) made the Tamron a winner for me.
Click to expand...

Blacktop said:
That's pretty much identical focus distance. However the weight and size does make a big difference. How did you find the IQ? If I get as sharp shots as I do with my Nikon 70-300VR than I would be happy with it.
Click to expand...

:culpability: Good thing one of us is good at math in the middle of the night. LOL

I'm a big fan of Tamron so may be a bit biased. Having owned a Nikon 70-300VR, which is under appreciated IMHO, I'd have to say you are comparing apples and oranges. The 70-300 is going to out perform both the Nikon and Tamron 28-300 on the long end. The price of convenience?
 
Top