28-300 af zoom?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by chip j, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. chip j

    chip j Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Both Sigma & Tamron made a number of different models of this lens--are any to be avoided? I have the Tamron Aspherical 3.8-5.6 w/62mm filter size. Thanks
     
  2. Marco Gilardetti

    Marco Gilardetti Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    603
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Location:
    Torino, Italy
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I would ask you in turn if you really need such an extreme optic. Of course there will be better and less good lenses within this family, but in general I have never seen a photograph taken with extreme zoom lenses that I consider technically satisfactory.
     
  3. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    17,609
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    But you have not seen those photographs neither not taken because the photographer had no respective prime lens within that range.
     
  4. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,087
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Groups:
    I suspect Marco wasn't hinting at prime lenses, but zoom lenses. In other words, using a couple of zoom lenses with more reasonable ranges. Perhaps a wide to normal and a normal to tele.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    chip j

    chip j Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Shooter:
    35mm
    This one I have has VERY minimal linear distortion at all focal lengths. Plus it's light. I've been using a 28-105 for years for 85% of my shots--first the old Nikon af D on my N90s and now the 28-100 G on my N80. Sometimes I wished for a little more reach. I just wonder about the quality of the glass in the 28-200--does it have brilliance? I'll find out once I shoot B&W and print it, but I was hoping for a quick answer..
     
  6. Paul Howell

    Paul Howell Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,782
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Phoeinx Ariz
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have shot not with a 28 to 300 but have several 28 to 200, Sigma in Minolta Mount and Tamron IF 28 to 200 in Pentax AF K, of the 2 I find the Tamron to have faster AF, both sharp in the mid range, seem a little soft at 200, have not had time to chart test. From what I have seen in reviews the 28 to 300 are very much in the same ball park as the 28 to 200, perhaps a little soft at the long end. Don't know if either Sigma or Tamron make an IF in that range.
     
  7. Marco Gilardetti

    Marco Gilardetti Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    603
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Location:
    Torino, Italy
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Many times I have purchased zooms or seriously considered pictures taken by fellow photographers with zooms as - at least in commercial ads - there was always some unbelievable new achievement that - again according to the ads - would completely change the cards on the table. Some new unbelievable kind of multi-coating, then a computer-assisted complete re-disign of the optics, then the introduction of some exotic extra-dispersion glass, and then the cult-status aspherical lenses. With none and I repeat none of those I could frankly associate the word "brilliant" as you ask, and I got rid of them as fast as I could. Say "convenient", "light", "pocketable", these are all words that could be reasonably associated to the word "zoom", but "brilliant" definitely no, especially to zooms with such a long focal range like 28-300.

    If you're happy with your 28-105 mm, I say keep it. If you want to extend the range and still keep going with zooms, I'd rather suggest to add to it another "specialty" zoom like a 100-300mm.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    chip j

    chip j Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Yes, I do have a 70-300 VR Nikkor af. By "brilliance" I meant optical brilliance--is it optically "there"?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  9. Agulliver

    Agulliver Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2015
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I have the Tamron DI LD 28-300 f3.5 zoom and up to 250mm or so it's fantastic. At the extreme end of it's range the image is just a little soft, but it does allow me to capture photos I couldn't without that lens. I've used it on film and digital bodies alike and it performs well, even has decent-ish manual focus. I found that when I used it with my D50 it was great to have that extra range on the zoom...less important with fine grain film or my D7100 as I can crop I have no other way of composing the image I want.

    I would say an "extreme" zoom does allow you to do things you just cannot with a regular zoom. Like photograph aeroplanes or animals a long way off. Or open air rock concerts, for example. Like all tools, use it wisely. If I'm after utmost quality I'll switch to a prime lens or a shorter range zoom.

    My Praktica Bayonet film cameras usually get Sigma 35-200 or 28-200 zooms, but the CZJ 35-70 is one of THE sharpest lenses I've ever had the pleasure to use. Less flexible than a longer zoom but a fantastic lens.
     
  10. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,950
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Some test results for the resolution of the Tamron 28-300 f3.5 - 6.3 asph LD were given in Amateur Photographer 3 April 1999.
    With a high contrast target at f 6.3 it resolved about 110 lppm centre at 28mm zoom and 85 lppm at 300mm zoom.
    By about f 9.5 the 300 mm resolution had caught up with the 28 mm and both reached about 115 lppm.
    I have a Sigma 28-300 with which I have made headshots at 300mm f8 good enough for competition prints.
    IMO there is not much point in carrying around such unnecessarily heavy 28-300 for landscapes where 28-70 will do, but if the extra zoom is needed, stop down the 300 mm end a bit and take steps to avoid shake.
     
  11. Ko.Fe.

    Ko.Fe. Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,034
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Location:
    MiltON.ONtario
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.