Is the Tamron 28-300mm f/4-7.1 even worth $900?

[Maxmolly7]

It is amazing how few "real" owners are writing about this lens. Thanx for your points of view!

maybe there is not that many " real owner" out there that's why.

I for one don't care for those super zoom, I have a Tamron 28-200, bought it with " travel light " in mind but ended up sitting in the closet after few trips and regret big time, so not going down this path again with another 10X zoom.

I love superzooms because I don't always need the perfect quality, but I do need to capture the perfect moment, and superzooms excel at that.

I am with you!
There is a larger expo/show at a photo shop by the end of May near my hometown
there, I hope to have a chance to check the Tamron for the similar reasons for my travel.
A focal length plot show that I tend to use both zoom ends a lot but also everything inbetween frequently. A little bit of extra reach would be nice...

My current idea is to pair the 28-300mm with 16-35mm PZ (for wider coverage and when the corners matter @ 28-35mm) and SY 75mm f1.8 for nice bokeh shots of e.g. people or food.

 

[jhunna]

It is amazing how few "real" owners are writing about this lens. Thanx for your points of view!

maybe there is not that many " real owner" out there that's why.

I for one don't care for those super zoom, I have a Tamron 28-200, bought it with " travel light " in mind but ended up sitting in the closet after few trips and regret big time, so not going down this path again with another 10X zoom.

I love superzooms because I don't always need the perfect quality, but I do need to capture the perfect moment, and superzooms excel at that.

I am with you!
There is a larger expo/show at a photo shop by the end of May near my hometown
there, I hope to have a chance to check the Tamron for the similar reasons for my travel.
A focal length plot show that I tend to use both zoom ends a lot but also everything inbetween frequently. A little bit of extra reach would be nice...

My current idea is to pair the 28-300mm with 16-35mm PZ (for wider coverage and when the corners matter @ 28-35mm) and SY 75mm f1.8 for nice bokeh shots of e.g. people or food.

I think that is a solid plan.

 

[LenRivers]

With it's dark aperture and what they say are inferior optics to the 28-200mm F2.8-5.6, is it worth $900?

Is it even sharper then the mediocre Sony 70-300 G?

Is the stabilization better than the Sony 24-240 OSS?

Can it resolve 42MP, and do it's flaws really show up on a 61MP sensor?

How much worse is the sharpness compared to the old 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 and which one would you prefer?

I have not read any of the above posts.

Nothing is worth any amount of money unless the user sees its value. Same reason why one neighbor drives a Honda another BMW (whatever the consumable is)

Same for a Rolex and Timex they tell the same time.

So for photography sake and how I think there are many ways to spend the same money and not buy it twice. Does one spend $900 only to sell that lens for say half on the used market only to buy that $2,000 lens they really wanted. Save longer or rent for a one off need perhaps.

I have been around long enough to see how rare it is now to buy an interchangeable camera with a lens for under $1000. My first SLR was maybe $600 new with a simple 35-80 mm zoom (film)

 

[Dan_168]

It is amazing how few "real" owners are writing about this lens. Thanx for your points of view!

maybe there is not that many " real owner" out there that's why.

I for one don't care for those super zoom, I have a Tamron 28-200, bought it with " travel light " in mind but ended up sitting in the closet after few trips and regret big time, so not going down this path again with another 10X zoom.

Thanks for your comment, Dan.

Wwhat do you use instead of the superzoom today?

For events: 24-70 F2.8 + 70-200 F2.8.

For portrait, 35 1.2, 85 1.2 135 1.8 is my default set up. I don't do wedding so I don't need the " flexibility", two bodies and 3 lenses is all I will need for everything. I have all day and all the space for me walk back and forth.

General landscape and backpacking: Sony 14GM, Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2 APO, Zeiss Loxia 85, and a lot of time I use my Canon Tilt Shift lenses TSE17, TSE 24, TSE 40, TSE 90.....normally only carry 4 or 5 lenses the most , a lot of the time I only need 21, 35 and 85, that will covers 90% of my landscape, occasionally 135 or 200. reason I spelled out the brand in this case not just the focal length because I own multiple systems and have a lot of duplicate lens with the same focal length, but specifically for landscape, those are my all time favorited among others. they offer the best for both general landscape and especially backpacking.

MilkyWay landscape: Sigma 14 1.4, Sigma 20 1.4, Sigma 35 1.2 ( I am a huge fan of those Sigma super fast primes where it comes to astro, even I also have Sony 14GM, 20G, 35GM,I do use them side by side as I always shoot with 2-3 bodies out there, but I still call the Sigma set my default choice, I don't do deep sky, but use the Samyang 135 F2 MF many time to shoot stuffs like Orion Nebula and stuffs like that.

Airshow/occasioanlly sports or wild life : EF 300 2.8, 400 2.8, Nikon 300 PF, 500 PF, 600, and getting 800 6.3 PF . recently year I also tried a 150-600 side by side in airshow, but you can guess which one I like better.

For travel: I do research on the place I will visit and select the lens I think will fit the best because I can't carry too many, normally just the same set of primes, my philosophy is I spent all those money to buy those good lens so I want to use it everywhere I go, I am no teenager but I have no problem carrying few bodies and 4 or 5 primes going anywhere, the Sony is already very light and small for me when compare to my Z9, 1DS and GFX, in fact, I use my Fuji GFX100s system ( which is the heaviest and biggest) a lot more these day instead of the FF in portrait and landscape.

 

[Maxmolly7]

Puh, lots of choices...

Are you a professional?

 

[jhunna]

It is amazing how few "real" owners are writing about this lens. Thanx for your points of view!

maybe there is not that many " real owner" out there that's why.

I for one don't care for those super zoom, I have a Tamron 28-200, bought it with " travel light " in mind but ended up sitting in the closet after few trips and regret big time, so not going down this path again with another 10X zoom.

Thanks for your comment, Dan.

Wwhat do you use instead of the superzoom today?

For events: 24-70 F2.8 + 70-200 F2.8.

For portrait, 35 1.2, 85 1.2 135 1.8 is my default set up. I don't do wedding so I don't need the " flexibility", two bodies and 3 lenses is all I will need for everything. I have all day and all the space for me walk back and forth.

General landscape and backpacking: Sony 14GM, Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2 APO, Zeiss Loxia 85, and a lot of time I use my Canon Tilt Shift lenses TSE17, TSE 24, TSE 40, TSE 90.....normally only carry 4 or 5 lenses the most , a lot of the time I only need 21, 35 and 85, that will covers 90% of my landscape, occasionally 135 or 200. reason I spelled out the brand in this case not just the focal length because I own multiple systems and have a lot of duplicate lens with the same focal length, but specifically for landscape, those are my all time favorited among others. they offer the best for both general landscape and especially backpacking.

MilkyWay landscape: Sigma 14 1.4, Sigma 20 1.4, Sigma 35 1.2 ( I am a huge fan of those Sigma super fast primes where it comes to astro, even I also have Sony 14GM, 20G, 35GM,I do use them side by side as I always shoot with 2-3 bodies out there, but I still call the Sigma set my default choice, I don't do deep sky, but use the Samyang 135 F2 MF many time to shoot stuffs like Orion Nebula and stuffs like that.

Airshow/occasioanlly sports or wild life : EF 300 2.8, 400 2.8, Nikon 300 PF, 500 PF, 600, and getting 800 6.3 PF . recently year I also tried a 150-600 side by side in airshow, but you can guess which one I like better.

For travel: I do research on the place I will visit and select the lens I think will fit the best because I can't carry too many, normally just the same set of primes, my philosophy is I spent all those money to buy those good lens so I want to use it everywhere I go, I am no teenager but I have no problem carrying few bodies and 4 or 5 primes going anywhere, the Sony is already very light and small for me when compare to my Z9, 1DS and GFX, in fact, I use my Fuji GFX100s system ( which is the heaviest and biggest) a lot more these day instead of the FF in portrait and landscape.

As an amateur I find 24GM and 50Gm and 28-300 a flash and a microphone cover me for everything except Wide and Super tele which I almost never need or want to shoot .

 

[Dan_168]

Puh, lots of choices...

Are you a professional?

I used to do a little bit as my side job but no, I am not, purely my hobby. I have a regular day job, so I can afford some nice camera gears, LOL.

 

[Maxmolly7]

Puh, lots of choices...

Are you a professional?

I used to do a little bit as my side job but no, I am not, purely my hobby. I have a regular day job, so I can afford some nice camera gears, LOL.

Thanx for your reply.

I would be overwelmed by so many different cameras.

 

[M Gartner]

No super zoom is worth anything in my book. I think my cell phone takes better photos at that point. Why even bother with a nice camera.

 

[Impulses]

No super zoom is worth anything in my book. I think my cell phone takes better photos at that point. Why even bother with a nice camera.

Your phone must be much better than my Pixel 9 Pro...

 

[Maxmolly7]

No super zoom is worth anything in my book. I think my cell phone takes better photos at that point. Why even bother with a nice camera.

I am surprised to hear this, especially when it comes to anything >70mm FF.

Which one are you using, may be I didn't pick the right one?

 

[Impulses]

No super zoom is worth anything in my book. I think my cell phone takes better photos at that point. Why even bother with a nice camera.

I am surprised to hear this, especially when it comes to anything >70mm FF.

Which one are you using, may be I didn't pick the right one?

 

[Maxmolly7]

Thanx for coming back on this!

 

[Bobby Handal]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

 

[jhunna]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

Well said, 24GM and 50GM and the 28-300 are all I need for a solid kit. That 28-300 is good enough for photos AND videos and compares well to the your average f5.6 video.

Everything else is for extremes.

 

[Phaser]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

I'm not surprised the 28-200 is sharper. It probably handles aberrations better also. I saw some samples of the 28-300 and the aberrations were very noticeable. Lots of color fringing. Have you noticed it?

 

[jhunna]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

I'm not surprised the 28-200 is sharper. It probably handles aberrations better also. I saw some samples of the 28-300 and the aberrations were very noticeable. Lots of color fringing. Have you noticed it?

Any lens that's not a G or GM level I expect to clean up in post processing. So I don't often pay attention to aberrations unless they are excessive. DxO cleans the files up pretty well.

 

[alphaZ]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

400-800 on a7cr? I tried the 200-600 on a7cr, hmm!

 

[Phaser]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

I'm not surprised the 28-200 is sharper. It probably handles aberrations better also. I saw some samples of the 28-300 and the aberrations were very noticeable. Lots of color fringing. Have you noticed it?

Any lens that's not a G or GM level I expect to clean up in post processing.

Understandable. I have decided not to get the 28-300, for now. I like the small size and versatility, but I'm just not really liking the sample images I see. So it's going to be either the 50-300 or 28-200.

So I don't often pay attention to aberrations unless they are excessive.

I try not to, but I always seem to notice them now. "Correct me!" they scream.

DxO cleans the files up pretty well.

I don't use DxO, it crashed all the time and didn't support some of my cameras. I use Topaz Photo AI currently.

 

[jhunna]

I got both, used my 28-200mm quite a bit, surprisingly sharp, even unexpected. But not IS.

I purchased the 28-300mm because I wanted more range and VC, this is quite a nice lens, a little bit bigger and a tad heavier than the 28-200mm, but the VC is very nice. I compared side by side and the 28-200mm is a little sharper. Having said that, the lens I use more is the 28-300mm VC, . I have now a perfect nature combo: a7cR, 16mm Sony , 28-300mm, 400-800mm..... very nice !!

I'm not surprised the 28-200 is sharper. It probably handles aberrations better also. I saw some samples of the 28-300 and the aberrations were very noticeable. Lots of color fringing. Have you noticed it?

Any lens that's not a G or GM level I expect to clean up in post processing.

Understandable. I have decided not to get the 28-300, for now. I like the small size and versatility, but I'm just not really liking the sample images I see. So it's going to be either the 50-300 or 28-200.

So I don't often pay attention to aberrations unless they are excessive.

I try not to, but I always seem to notice them now. "Correct me!" they scream.

DxO cleans the files up pretty well.

I don't use DxO, it crashed all the time and didn't support some of my cameras. I use Topaz Photo AI currently.

Makes sense, I know you will be happy with any of those choices.