Nikon 70-300 vs Tamron 28-300

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bayydogg, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. bayydogg

    bayydogg Guest

    I have the Nikon 70-300/4-5.6 ED and it is terrible at 300mm/5.6. So
    I'm considering replacing two Nikon zooms for the Tamron XR. I guess
    it's now called the Tamron AF28-300mm/3.5-6.3 XR DI LD Aspherical IF
    MACRO lens. The magazines (especially PopPhoto) and other testers say
    the Tamron's a hit. But I've seen no photo comparisons between the two
    lenses. Is there such a comparison somewhere on the internet? Has
    anyone done a comparison and, if so, is the Tamron really that great?
    Thanks.
     
    bayydogg, Aug 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. bayydogg

    Skip M Guest

    If you think the Nikon was bad at 300mm, just wait until you see the Tamron
    at the same focal length. Don't sell the Nikkor just yet...
     
    Skip M, Aug 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. bayydogg

    Robert Brace Guest

    Anyone who says the Tamron is a hit (for anything except being compact and
    light) must truly have his head up his a**.
    The build quality alone is such a departure (in the worst way possible) from
    the Nikon glass, it will shock you.
    I have one in for warranty repairs as we speak, after shooting 36 exposures
    while on the F100 once!!!
    Don't even consider getting rid of the Nikons for the Tamron!!!!!
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Aug 26, 2004
    #3
  4. You cannot be serious.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 27, 2004
    #4
  5. bayydogg

    bmoag Guest

    The serious answer (if you are serious) is that all these long zooms are
    pretty awful except used outside on a bright day stopped down with a busy
    subject disgusing their low contrast, lack of sharpness, unbelievable
    distortion and tendency to flare. I will trade you my Tamron 28-200 for your
    Nikon any day, if I can find the damn thing wherever I hid it.
     
    bmoag, Aug 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Yes.....I use my 70-300 Nikkor once a year. At the beach during Oregon's
    kite festival. It's f/8 and smaller all day, so even at 300 mm it's sharp
    enough for me.....
     
    William Graham, Aug 27, 2004
    #6
  7. LOL!

    In my (limited) telephoto experience, the most worthwhile 300mm lenses don't
    zoom at all, and most reasonably priced zooms with 300mm in the range are
    pretty bad. Zooms that both start around 28mm and end above 200mm are
    amongst the worst lenses you can buy these days.

    Tamron have made about five great lenses. That one isn't one of them.

    A used Nikon 300/4 is about 2x the price of a 70-300mm zoom in the UK. If
    200mm is okay, look into an 80-200mm f2.8, then maybe stick a 1.4x TCon on
    the back for a maximum of 280mm. Shop around.
     
    Martin Francis, Aug 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Oh, or a used 180mm f2.8 with a teleconverter.
     
    Martin Francis, Aug 27, 2004
    #8
  9. bayydogg

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : I have the Nikon 70-300/4-5.6 ED and it is terrible at 300mm/5.6. So
    : I'm considering replacing two Nikon zooms for the Tamron XR. I guess
    : it's now called the Tamron AF28-300mm/3.5-6.3 XR DI LD Aspherical IF
    : MACRO lens. The magazines (especially PopPhoto) and other testers say
    : the Tamron's a hit. But I've seen no photo comparisons between the two
    : lenses. Is there such a comparison somewhere on the internet? Has
    : anyone done a comparison and, if so, is the Tamron really that great?
    : Thanks.

    I got talked into a couple of Tamron lenses for my Canon a number of years ago.
    Those two lenses are junk.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Aug 28, 2004
    #9
  10. bayydogg

    Dallas Guest

    Is the lens terrible, or is your technique terrible?

    Many people using consumer grade telephoto zooms often mistake soft images
    for poor optics, when in fact the results have more to do with poor
    technique than the lens itself.

    Unless you have an optical stabiliser in the lens, using a tripod or
    monopod at focal lengths of 200mm or more becomes mandatory, especially
    when your biggest aperture is f/5.6 or smaller. Try it before you replace
    a decent zoom lens with a truly abyssmal one.
     
    Dallas, Aug 29, 2004
    #10
  11. bayydogg

    Alan Browne Guest

    There is NO 70/75-300 from ANY manufacturer that is any good
    beyond 200mm or so.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 29, 2004
    #11
  12. And, IMO, there are few photographers who can take sharp hand held
    photographs beyond 200 mm or so.......This is why I usually leave my 70-300
    mm zoom home and take my 75-150 mm "E" type..........
     
    William Graham, Aug 29, 2004
    #12
  13. bayydogg

    vhl Guest

    This is true. My Nikkor 70-300 at set at 300mm on any aperture
    is never as sharp as my Nikkor 300/2.8 at f/2.8. I thought
    the zoom was sharp when set to f/11, but you dont know what
    is sharp until you get a prime 300.

    Regards,
     
    vhl, Aug 30, 2004
    #13
  14. bayydogg

    Alan Browne Guest

    The 70/75-300's could be mounted to a camera welded to a 10"
    solid steel post embedded in rebarred concrete in a 10' deep hole
    in a granite mountain and they'd still be soft beyond 200...
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 30, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.