Small zoom lens 28-300 - Nikon or Tamron?

Messages
741
Edit My Images
No
I'm contemplating on a cheap and small zoom lens for traveling, don't want to spend a lot, I would use it occasionally in parks shooting squirels, birds etc
I would go for 300mm max.
I see two options in 28-300 range:

1) Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR
2) Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD

Both could be bought for around £300-350 used.

Anybody used one of those? Which one would be better overall?


Or maybe Nikon AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR would be better?
I dont care about closer f, 28 or 70mm is fine.
 
Last edited:
I got the Nikon one around the time of the 2012 Olympics. Cannot compare it with the Tamron as I didn’t have both.

It did what I wanted, but was soft at the long end and slow aperture wise. Given I could only take one lens into the venues, it was brilliant.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe Nikon AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR would be better?
I dont care about closer f, 28 or 70mm is fine.

I can't speak for the 70-300mm mention above, but I do own the newer afp version which performs well both on my D750's and D500's and is acceptably light. I also use the Tamron 70-200 G2 f2.8 and the Nikon 80-400mm, finding them quite acceptable for my use but heavy to carry around all day.
 
I've got the Tamron. Heres a few pics from it shot on a 6d2. I'd say it's not bad, better than I expected. Bit softer on the long end. But it's such a handy range theres a trade off.
It's light, small and compact closed up. If your pixle peeping or cropping a lot this probably isnt ideal, but I dont have the Nikon to compare. At a similar price I doubt theres a massive difference.

tn_IMG_819528mm.jpgtn_IMG_8193300mm.jpgtn_IMG_8198200mm.jpgtn_IMG_8203100mm.jpg
 
Another vote for the Tamron, this time on a Nikon D600...

Camera Nikon D600 Tamron 28-300mm A65 DSC00155.JPG

It's small, light and works well enough for my needs. Other people's mileage may, of course, vary.
 
The Nikon 28-300 isn't all that small, but it's versatile and good enough for most people (if they were honest). I'm tempted to buy another. I haven't used the PF 70-300 but the older 70-300VR was lighter than the 28-300 and maybe a tad sharper at longer distances at 300mm. If you'll mainly be using the 70-300 range the 70-300 might be a better option. If you want versatility the 28-300 is a one lens solution.

I haven't used the Tamron versions, but the Tamron lenses I have used/do use are very good.
 
The 70-300 FX AF-P is really good. Not as good as a 70-200 but a better travel lens. It is quite long when extended.

The 70-300 AF-P DX version is not as sharp or as bright as the FX but is really light. If you are thinking about a occasional use lens for cropped wildlife shots in daylight it is a good lens.
 
Is the 24-200 too short for you?

I would occasionally use it in parks, so shooting squirels and birds, so I thought even 300mm is too short as people suggest.
Thing is I don't want to go too long to make it heavy.
I only shoot family photos, trips, scenery, landscapes, street, culinary photos. I would love to shoot wildlife and macro, but I dont go anywhere where I could do that.
I thought that if I would get longer zoom, I could start doing it :)
 
The 70-300 FX AF-P is really good. Not as good as a 70-200 but a better travel lens. It is quite long when extended.

The 70-300 AF-P DX version is not as sharp or as bright as the FX but is really light. If you are thinking about a occasional use lens for cropped wildlife shots in daylight it is a good lens.
Is the FX variant a Nikon lens as I think this what I need?!
Thanks!
 
Back
Top