Tamron 18-270 vs 28-300

Trainwizard

TPF Noob!
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
44
Reaction score
32
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hello guys, it's been a while since I've been on here. So recently I dropped my Tamron 18-270 VC non-PZD (yeah, I'm a klutz with expensive stuff) and the glass got dislocated internally. It takes perfect pictures from 18mm to about 185mm then at longer lengths it's fuzzy at all apertures. It's not under warranty (I bought it used online) and the local repair shop is asking over $180 to fix it. I'd be better off buying a 18-200 or 28-300 XR for that price.

Also, on my time off from this site, I've since upgraded from a Nikon D5100 to a Nikon D7100. So the Tammy 28-300 XR will AF on it. Would it really be worth it? I have an ultrawide 10-20mm so the loss of wide angle is ok. Also I don't think the loss of VC will bother me for the price. I do shoot deep telephoto often (200-300mm, sometimes cropping).

I'm a serious but curious photothusiast wanting to save on glass by getting non-motorized AF lenses.
 
IMHO... get a Nikon 50mm 1.8 (1.8d or 1.8g) and a Refurb Nikon 70-300VR (must be the VR!)... and save yourself 1/2 the price of the 28-300.

The IQ of your photos will be soooo much better..
 
A 50mm f/1.8D is actually already on my wishlist as well. Thanks. (however a cheap autofocus 28-300 non VC superzoom is selling online for less than $150, so I don't think it'll be a waste to at least have a decent walk-around to complement a 70-300 VR.)
 
A 50mm f/1.8D is actually already on my wishlist as well. Thanks. (however a cheap autofocus 28-300 non VC superzoom is selling online for less than $150, so I don't think it'll be a waste to at least have a decent walk-around to complement a 70-300 VR.)

Ah.. thought you where talking about the ~$800 28-300.
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD Lens for Nikon AFA010N-700

Either way... the high MP count on the D7100 will make any superzoom non-worth-while IMHO.

I'd pick the range you spend most time at... and get a normal zoom.

If its the 18- 55 range then a refurbished Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II DX is ~$100. An 18-105 refurb is ~$200.

if you need a zoom then..

A refurbished Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX is ~$99 and would be better then a superzoom.
A refurbished Nikon 70-300VR was going for $270 last weekend from Nikon USA.

A $150 superzoom and a D7100 is a waste of $150 (again... IMHO)
 
Honestly choosing between these 2 lenses on the D7100 is a waste, choosing between them is like choosing between a slap in the face or kick to the teeth, dont want either!
D7100 is a superb camera that deserves better glass, you really dont get any serious benefit from the advanced sensor with such mediocre lenses.
As other said get the 70-300mm VR which is a much better and sharper lens, all these super zoom lenses are very practical but their image quality is not very good.

I think if I was forced to go with a DSLR with such a lens I would much rather get the Panasonic FZ1000
 
Thanks, folks. I've decided to just screw it and get a 50mm f/1.8AFD. BAM. Love it! Plus who needs extra zoom when you got 1.3x crop! Lol.
 
on a zoom lens like that you really want some kind of Vibration reduction or you are basically stuck only using it on a tripod to keep the lens from bluring, I remember trying to use someones 200mm lens with out any vibration control while hand holding it a while back and unless I had a very fast shutter speed all of the images blurred. 90% of the time I like to hand hold my lenses though.

the nikon 70-300mm VR lens is a excellent lens, The extra zoom really does come in handy depending on what you are shooting. I think every one should have a lens that zooms to at least 200mm, than again if you are only shooting landscapes or things that are close you you I guess the extra zoom not needed but its definitely something I really like to have.

I went with the 18-200 because its nice not needing to switch lenses for general shooting is great. I have been quite happy with the IQ with that lens even though its not as good as t the 70-300mm nikon VR lens I am still happy with it.

having a 35mm 1.8 and/or a 50mm 1.8 is also very nice, especially in low light situations I think you made a good choice getting that over a zoom lens without image stabilization
 

Most reactions

Back
Top