Anyone using the Tamron 28-300 VC on the D700?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by puddleduck, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. I've searched on this but the search seems broken (or my search skill are) as the second topic in my search is "https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=182082&highlight=tamron+28-300", and it brought up "Share your best Macro-lens portrait shots" and not a hint of any discussion about this lens at all - bizarre!

    Hmmm... well I've got the chance to pick up a Tamron 28-300 VC. I like Tamron, I find they optically punch above their weight.

    However I'll be honest - I don't like all-in-one zooms, and putting one on a D700 seems a little like.. well putting square wheels on a Ferrari.

    Anyone tried it, and does the lower pixel density allow you to get away with murder on this sort of thing..?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  2. gugs

    gugs

    490
    Feb 24, 2006
    Belgium
  3. Thanks - nice review, I wasn't a fan of the 18-200 VR, so I think reading between the lines its a bit daft to put on a D700 - 30%-70% expense ratio for glass vs body ratio rarely is a good idea.

    I appreciate that review :)
     
  4. shaocaholica

    shaocaholica

    112
    Jul 21, 2008
    LA
    I don't think thats the right way to think about it. Look at the D3, its $2000 more than the D700 and yet has the same sensor. Should the D3 be paired up with glass thats 66% more expensive than glass you would use on a D700 despite having the same sensor? What about the D40x/D200?

    Put glass on your camera that meets your needs, not based on some funky voodoo math.
     
  5. I have, see this post

    I did a mini review on dpreview last week and ended up using this lens Saturday at the DCI World Championships Saturday night. I will have more pictures posted on here tomorrow and on my website tomorrow as well but I have to tell you, I am pretty pleased with what I have processed so far.

    Here is a link to my review, don't know if this will help or not....

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=28887018
     
  6. Well the question is, does this meet my needs?

    I'm not sure what a 28-300 VC on a D3 would have over a D300 + 18-200 VR.

    Not sure about you, but I'd question the logic off paying $3k or $4k on a camera then putting this sort of lens on it (no offence to any owners), but I think its a valid question.

    Will it outperform a DX camera with an 18-200 VR? If not, it doesn't need "voodoo maths" to figure, its not a good course of action.

    Not voodoo maths, plain common sense :)
     
  7. Hi Robb

    Thanks for the link and pics :)
     
  8. Paulesko

    Paulesko

    90
    Jul 23, 2008
    Spain
    Think that nikon´s d700/d3 sensor is the less exigent eith optics that nikon is selling right now. In terms of resolving capabilities it´s as exigent as a nikon d50 in dx, so yo can put almost any lens in a d3 that it will outresolve the sensor for sure.

    I don´t think that a d3 can "see" the difference between a sigma 24-70 and a nikon 24-70, only talking about resolution, and that´s why nikon 24-120 is giving such a good results on d700 and not so good on a d300.
     
  9. I think I'd agree with that, hence my question in the opening post about the lower pixel density. Many lenses "revive" on FF, i.e the 24-120VR or the 70-300 VR.

    I'm trying to think whether I will gain much over my D60 with a (theoretical) 18-200 VR on it. DX still has a size advantage for when you want to be discrete.
     
  10. Here a a few more

    Here are just a few that I took this weekend at DCI. Keep in mind, I was sitting way back from the field and about 40 rows up so soe of these are cropped and no, this is not going to ever be the answer to Nikons 2.8 Zoom Lenses but I didn't expect that. The glass was slow, Most of these are shot a F8 Aperture prioirty (need to keep the lens stopped down 1-2 stops for maximum sharpness) and taken anywhere from 400-2500 ISO so make your own determination. I am overall happy. Now I am going to compare it to my 70-300VR as I have the 24-85 2.8-4 and 70-300VR as a combinatio0ns and I have to see which is better. It sure is noce to just use the one lens though. Hope these help.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  11. acolo63

    acolo63

    25
    Aug 11, 2008
    Santa Cruz, CA
    They look great...lots of contrast. What post processing was done? Thanks
     
  12. Little

    Slight sharpening of RAW files and thats it. Some cropping but nothing major.
     
  13. Thanks everyone for the answers.

    The motivation for this thread was because I had the opportunity to buy the lens. I got a lucky escape! The buyer (he beat me to it, I know well from another forum) has sent crops from the lens vs a Nikkor 70-300 VR. He's given me permission to link in.

    Tamron 28-300mm 300mm:

    2757678212_e494760afa_o.png

    2757675108_771f260282.png

    Nikkor 70-300mm 300mm:

    View attachment 238234

    View attachment 238235


    (for anyone who goes to Talk Photography the thread is here, thanks to Nictry for the reply over there and letting me link in here)

    http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=76941
     
  14. Lucky Escape?

    I don't understand what you mean by a lucky escape? The images you posted don't look significantly different. You also have to realize that when you are buying a variable aperture lens with 28-300 Zoom on it, you are going to have to make some sacrifices. It is still a good lens and I can see this one getting put on a lot of D700s out there, at least until Nikon comes up with something that isn't DX.
     
  15. I don't understand what you mean by a lucky escape? The images you posted don't look significantly different.

    We'll have to agreed to dis-agree on that!
     
  16. The Nikon 70-300VR is not DX, I do not believe. Of all the 70-300's out now, I really think Nikon's is superior. It has AFSII, VR and ED glass. The 28-300 just has too many compromises. IMHO

    Nancy
     
  17. 70-300 does look a little sharper....

    Puddleduck,
    Now that I have put the pix on my bigger monitor (laptop last night), I do see a slightly sharper image on the 70-300. I have also found this to be the case with my lenses. I have the 70-300 and the 28-300 and notice the 70-300 is clearly a little sharper on the long end but it should be, that is what it is designed for. The 28-300 is more for all around and I believe is strong, I know it is stronger at 28-70 than the Nikon :rolleyes: for what it is designed for which is a jack of all trades lens (but master of none.) I think the fall off to 6.3 also hurts the Tammy slightly at the long end. Enjoy what you have, it is a very adequate performer.