Lens Advise 28-300mm

Unless you have a real compelling reason to go with such a wide-ranging lens, I’d question the wisdom of acquiring one.

Admittedly my 28-300 spends most of its life on my film SLR these days (a function it performs very well). Andy’s advice is good and it’s something I didn’t really think of, there actually isn’t really much point in getting something that covers most of the range you already have but with less quality unless you plan on using it to shoot other things (i.e. non-aviation photography which is what I generally use my 28-300 for). As Andy suggests, maybe try looking at a decent dedicated wide angle lens instead? The quality will certainly be better.

Paul

Unless you have a real compelling reason to go with such a wide-ranging lens, I’d question the wisdom of acquiring one. The Canon in that range is very expensive. For the most part, I do not rate Tamron these days. Lenses of this range ARE a compromise between flexibility and absolute quality. If you are looking for something that primarily covers the wide end of the range (you said you already had a 100-400 for the long stuff) then a 28-300 will be bulky and heavy compared to a wide-to-short-tele zoom. I know if I had a 28-300 (I don’t) I’d end up using it mostly at the short end of its range and I’d still use the 100-400 for the longer stuff. OK, undoubtedly there are occasions when going from wide to medium-tele in one lens is useful and flexible. But my advice – look for a 28-135 or 24-105 to complement the 100-400, not a 28-300 – and if you want to cover 28 all the way up to 300 in one go, use the 100-400 on one body and a 28-135 or similar on a second body.

Andy

To be honest it’s a difficult thing to say which is best because with glass you really do get what you pay for, but that said it’s remarkable the results you can get with lower end lenses. By their nature, ‘superzoom’ lenses (anything in that x10 range) are usually softer than lenses without quite as much zoom (like a 70-200), but you can still certainly get good results out of them if your technique and editing are reasonable. I have the Tamron 28-300 which is a lens so many people slate for being soft but I’ve had some great results out of it. Fellow forum member Adam Spalding recently took it on a trip to the States and he had some very fine results with it as well, so that may be an option to check out. Again, with lenses you get what you pay for so you won’t really find one lower end lens that’s massively better than another, but based on experience I can certainly say the Tamron 28-300 is a capable little lens.

Paul