I've been eyeing the new Nikon 28-300 mm lens that's recently been released. The problem is, there's a Tamron lens that's also 28-300mm and it's less than half the cost of the Nikon lens. I've never not bought a Nikon lens and I'm wondering which one would be better. Do you have a Tamron lens? Are you happy with it? Is the quality as good as Nikon?
Do you happen to have the Nikon 28-300mm lens? Do you like it?
Rather just buy yourself the Nikon lens. Or do you only buy the Tamron, but saves money later for a Nikon lens.In Autofocus and quality is Nikon better.Although I have not had from the Tamron 28-300 but a 28-75 2.8. War is not bad in itself but with a 24-70 Nikon's what I have now purchased it man do not compare at all. As day and night.
I bought my first Tamron lens many, many years ago ... and recently bought their 10-24mm lens. Have sold lots of stock shot with Tamron. Also, look into Tokina lenses and Sigma lenses. I've used them since the 1970s and sold work shot with them.
I bought a Tamron telephoto lens a few years back, and was very disappointed. Traded it in for a Nikon equivalent. There was no comparison. The focusing with the Tamron was too slow for my tastes (not good if you are trying for wildlife on the move). The quality of my image was also not what I hoped for. I do use a Sigma for my ultra-wide angle shots and I love it. I bought it instead of the Nikon which was much more expensive. I have never been sorry.
Currently my primary cameras are a Fuji X-T2 and a Fuji X100F.
After reading all of this, I'm still torn! I'm looking to use it as a general all purpose lens when I travel, with my 2.8 17-55 mm Nikkor Lens as its travel buddy. As I have never not used a Nikon lens, I was apprehensive. I usually go by the maxim " You get what you pay for", so that's why I was looking for input. I'm really leaning back to the Nikon lens now though, based on what I have read here.
I really really appreciate everyone's feedback! I am going to Africa in the next two years sometime, then I will be looking for another telephoto lens and I might keep that Sigma in mind, Lostarts!
I've owned both Nikon and Tamron lenses and I do a lot of travel photographer including multiple trips to Africa, Central America and Asia. The Nikon lens costs twice as much for a reason, it is twice the lens! Nikons have better optics, better construction, and much, much better resale value. If you go on ebay and compare two similar Nikon/Tamron lenses, the Nikon will be worth about 70% of the MSRP and the Tamron will be worth about 20%. Yes, you can use a tamron and get decent quality buy why spend so much on a D300s and then downgrade your quality with an aftermarket lens?
Nikon bodies with Nikon lenses=best results. Like Johnnymitch said, you are downgrading the camera. I'd spend the money on the best lens you can...the most important investment in your gear are your lenses.
Thanks so much to all who responded. I've decided that I will continue to only purchase Nikon lenses. I haven't bought the 28-300 lens, but I'm still definitely thinking about it. I appreciate everyone's input! :)
I always knew that there must be a reason for those high prices on high-end Nikon & Canon lens, however some would say you're paying partly for the brand engravings too. Nevertheless, I am now also considering buying an extra lens to enrich my photography experience. I am a bit tight on the budget right now, so still would be looking at possible cheaper alternatives to the original brand-new lenses. But I lean more to ebay trades for old/used lenses, while sticking to Nikorr (in my case).
So, if you had a few older model lenses from Nikon AND could compare those with my current Nikon DX AF-S Nikorr 18-105mm 3.5-5.6G ED VR in terms of image quality benefits, like distortion/aberrations, fine detail resolution and especially bokeh (which I really miss with my otherwise versatile lens). O'kay, what I am looking for is a lens for city/town oriented photography, where one does not need that much of zoom (perhaps, still with some 3-4x) but minimum distortion and nice background blurring (say, for taking photos of an active child in the city environment, where blurred streets are only complementary).
I would also welcome any comments on ebay deals, what should I expect, avoid or aim at...
photos), Canon PS-A610 (rarely, very good at macro with ada...
I would stay with Nikon if my body was a nikon, but if you were using a canon I would suggest the 70-300 instead of a 28-300, it's too much zoom and you usually looses quality, and you already own a 17-55, so you can pair them together.
I soot primarily weddings and use Nikon bodies. My 2 main lenses are SIGMA an 18-55 2.8 and a 24-175 2.8-4.5. Bot are great lenses, clear and quiet,. I also have a Nikon 80-200 2.8 and it is a fantastic piece of glass. GO to you local shop and try them all on the body you use and do a comparison.
Quoted Message: So, if you had a few older model lenses from Nikon AND could compare those with my current Nikon DX AF-S Nikorr 18-105mm 3.5-5.6G ED VR in terms of image quality benefits, like distortion/aberrations, fine detail resolution and especially bokeh (which I really miss with my otherwise versatile lens). O`kay, what I am looking for is a lens for city/town oriented photography, where one does not need that much of zoom (perhaps, still with some 3-4x) but minimum distortion and nice background blurring (say, for taking photos of an active child in the city environment, where blurred streets are only complementary).I would also welcome any comments on ebay deals, what should I expect, avoid or aim at...
Can't offer advice here, just wanted to add that I'd also be interested in the replies to this question (having the same lens).
Well, my favorite Nikkor lens and the best performer by far is the 2.8 17-55mm. It's not cheap, but it's an amazing piece of glass. Very, very sharp pictures (unless it's operator error, LOL), very little to no chromatic aberration and nice bokeh. It does have distortion, but this can be corrected in Lightroom or photohop. I got mine when I got the D300S, as a part of the deal.
On another note, I did NOT buy the 28-300mm lens, mostly because I cannot find it anywhere. It is not available at all in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, and it was not available in Saigon, either. So, I bought the 18-200 mm Nikkor. The jury's still out on this lens.
Meanwhile I found this great list of reviews for Nikon lenses. Back to my own considerations, I have been thinking of getting older and more conservative 18-70mm famous for its great price/quality rank, but this controversial discussion on respected forum set my mind back to wondering... maybe someone could comment on how the two compare (18-105 vs 18-70).
I also saw comparisons between 18-105 and 18-200 (don't have a link handy) which hardly favour either lens, the latter having more CA and less sharp above 100mm, but with longer zoom, obviously.
So I am still (re)searching, and actually leaning towards shorter zooms with larger apertures... would really like to try 2.8 17-55mm, if I found a source :) but it would painfully bite me on my left pocket...
photos), Canon PS-A610 (rarely, very good at macro with ada...