28-300 af zoom?

[chip j]

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

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

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.

 

[AgX]

But you have not seen those photographs neither not taken because the photographer had no respective prime lens within that range.

 

[Anon Ymous]

But you have not seen those photographs neither not taken because the photographer had no respective prime lens within that range.

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.

 

[chip j]

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..

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I just wonder about the quality of the glass in the 28-200--does it have brilliance?

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.

 

[chip j]

Yes, I do have a 70-300 VR Nikkor af. By "brilliance" I meant optical brilliance--is it optically "there"?

 

[Agulliver]

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.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Canon has L 28-300. If I would be interested in focal lengths after 100mm I would buy it. Nothing exotic and not so expensive.
My school friend has this one https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029393-REG/tamron_28_300mm_f_3_5_6_3_di_vc.html as the only lens.
Not exotic, nor expensive.
Both lenses have optical stabilization.