Your Nikon opinions please: 18-300 DX or 28-300 FX on a D7100

[djg05478]

Hello all

I'm thinking of getting a new lense either the 18-300 DX or 28-300 FX for use on a D7100. My primary motivation is the 300 end for wildlife. Secondary consideration is the range will be good all around. The cost of the two lenses is roughly the same. I currently use the Tamron 70-300 which I'm not completely unhappy with, just looking for more versatility in one lense. And while I don't know the math off the top of my head, I am aware that putting the FX lense on my D7100 gives me a different range (*1.5 or 1.6) more reach, less on the other end, but still less than 70 that I currently have with the Tamron. I have other wide angle lenses, so I'm not worried about that end.

Getting a FF body is not on the immediate agenda but I could see myself grabbing a used one someday, so that is a low priority factor in my decision (but its in there).

I have it in my head that the FX lense is going to be a better lense and I don't know why I think that. Are they built the same? One more rugged/solid than the other? Sharper? Better auto focus?

I did a little forum searching before posting and couldn't find anything already in the forum....but if it has been previously discussed if someone could paste me a link that would be great.

Thanks

[Manfred M]

Debbie - one significant error in your assumptions, the "different range" as you put it is related to the sensor, not the lens, so in the 28-300mm range both lenses will perform identically when it comes to what you see in the viewfinder and what you record in the camera on your D7100. The DX lens will get you an additional 10mm focal length at the wide end, and this is really the main difference you will see in practical terms.

From a build quality, both are going to be similar as they are really built for the same market. Both have optical quirks, due to the wide zoom range that they cover; the 28-300mm has some strange distortions and the 18-300mm exhibits some softness at the long end. You might get a slightly better image on the 28-300mm lens as you will be shooting with a lens with a wider image circle, but I suspect you would have to be pixel peeping to notice the difference. If shooting jpeg, the camera will compensate for the distortion, and depending on the raw converter you use, the same will happen if you select the appropriate options during the raw conversion process.

If you were looking to go FF in the short term, I would definitely suggest the 28-300mm FX, but as you are looking at that as a low priority, I would go for the DX lens to get the extra range at the wide angle side.

[Brev00]

If your primary goal is the 300mm end for wildlife and you are not completely happy with the 70-300, I would not get either of the two lenses you indicate. The key issue with many superzooms is their compromises. Typically, one of the compromises is with the long end. I have used a Tamron 28-300 since my film days and it was my only lens on my D90 for over a year. I still use it when I want that versatility. But, it is weak at the long end and when I want decent long shots I will go with my Tamron 70-300 vc. If I wanted better performance at 300mm, I would look at a used 300 f 4 or one of the new 150-600s. Now, if you said you just wanted the convenience of shooting over a nice range, I would have no problems with either superzoom. I do like the 28-300 range and I can carry my 12-24 if I want to be ready for wide shots. But, if you expect wildlife performance, you may be disappointed. The Nikon 55-300 has a slightly wider range and seems to do very well at 300. I have seen good wildlife images shot using it. Another idea.

[NorthernFocus]

Debbie, your post is a little confusing as to what you are trying to accomplish. You mention "looking for more versatility" but then you see you aren't concerned about the wide end because you have it covered. If you're looking to get a really good wildlife lens at a reasonable cost, the previous recommendation for a used 300 f4 is probably the best option. Or the lower priced option of the two Sigma 150-600 which is comparable price to the Nikon lenses you're considering. If, on the other hand, you are truly interested in versatility and not as concerned with optimum quality, then go for the 18-300 and you have it covered. Another really excellent lens that is out of production but still AF-S focus is the Sigma 100-300mm f4. If you find a clean copy of that lens it is excellent.

Sorry to further confuse the issue by throwing in more options...

[billtils]

Debbie, based on personal experience with a D7100 and the Nikkor 70 -300 for wildlife, my recommendation to you is to get the Tamron 150 - 600. It is a fabulous lens, and to address your FF sub-question, I have shared images with a friend who is a "birder" with a Canon 5D3 and we both are unreserved in our liking for this lens. I win with the D7100 because of the extra effective focal length and he wins with the overall image quality of the FF that allows more aggressive cropping.

Normally advice on anything is best qualified with "YMMV" but this time there are no reservations

[Black Pearl]

Debbie, look at the lens performance of your Tamron against the Nikon 28-300mm at 300mm in the links below. I chose the 28-300mm as its the better (for want of a better word) of the two lenses you mention. You will see the Tamron far out performs the Nikon so while you do get the versatility of a wide range you lose significant sharpness over the frame.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619...f456fx?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578...00vrff?start=1

[ionian]

Which tamron 70-300 have you got? Is it with or without vibration control (VC)? If it's the VC model, you'll have to a long way and spend some serious money to beat it quality-wise. The lenses you are looking at will be ok, but offer very little extra. Don't forget that you can also put the d7100 in 2x crop mode for even more reach in a pinch if you need it, at the cost of resolution of course.

You mention you have the wide end covered on other lenses already. You may be better served getting a second body and having one of these options on there for the wider stuff, if you find changing lenses a problem. Extra weight to carry though.

[djg05478]

Debbie - one significant error in your assumptions, the "different range" as you put it is related to the sensor, not the lens, so in the 28-300mm range both lenses will perform identically when it comes to what you see in the viewfinder and what you record in the camera on your D7100. The DX lens will get you an additional 10mm focal length at the wide end, and this is really the main difference you will see in practical terms.

From a build quality, both are going to be similar as they are really built for the same market. Both have optical quirks, due to the wide zoom range that they cover; the 28-300mm has some strange distortions and the 18-300mm exhibits some softness at the long end. You might get a slightly better image on the 28-300mm lens as you will be shooting with a lens with a wider image circle, but I suspect you would have to be pixel peeping to notice the difference. If shooting jpeg, the camera will compensate for the distortion, and depending on the raw converter you use, the same will happen if you select the appropriate options during the raw conversion process.

If you were looking to go FF in the short term, I would definitely suggest the 28-300mm FX, but as you are looking at that as a low priority, I would go for the DX lens to get the extra range at the wide angle side.

Thank you. Exactly what I wanted to know, neither one shines or fails over the other in a remarkable way. I shoot RAW and use Lightroom for adjustments and export to JPG.

Debbie

[djg05478]

If your primary goal is the 300mm end for wildlife and you are not completely happy with the 70-300, I would not get either of the two lenses you indicate. The key issue with many superzooms is their compromises. Typically, one of the compromises is with the long end. I have used a Tamron 28-300 since my film days and it was my only lens on my D90 for over a year. I still use it when I want that versatility. But, it is weak at the long end and when I want decent long shots I will go with my Tamron 70-300 vc. If I wanted better performance at 300mm, I would look at a used 300 f 4 or one of the new 150-600s. Now, if you said you just wanted the convenience of shooting over a nice range, I would have no problems with either superzoom. I do like the 28-300 range and I can carry my 12-24 if I want to be ready for wide shots. But, if you expect wildlife performance, you may be disappointed. The Nikon 55-300 has a slightly wider range and seems to do very well at 300. I have seen good wildlife images shot using it. Another idea.

Thank you for your reply and your information. I have the Tamron 70-300 VC. I'm not looking for exceptional wildlife performance, I need to compromise that for something that I can walk with for miles and not tote around a tripod. I will do some research on the 300 f/4 per your suggestion.

Debbie

[Brev00]

Thank you for your reply and your information. I have the Tamron 70-300 VC. I'm not looking for exceptional wildlife performance, I need to compromise that for something that I can walk with for miles and not tote around a tripod. I will do some research on the 300 f/4 per your suggestion.

Debbie

No, the 300 f4 will not work as a light, trail walking lens. That is pretty specific in its purpose as a very sharp prime often used on a tripod or monopod. Look at the new Tamron 28-300 vc. I have heard good things and Tamron tends to do lightweight superzooms.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[djg05478]

Debbie, your post is a little confusing as to what you are trying to accomplish. You mention "looking for more versatility" but then you see you aren't concerned about the wide end because you have it covered. If you're looking to get a really good wildlife lens at a reasonable cost, the previous recommendation for a used 300 f4 is probably the best option. Or the lower priced option of the two Sigma 150-600 which is comparable price to the Nikon lenses you're considering. If, on the other hand, you are truly interested in versatility and not as concerned with optimum quality, then go for the 18-300 and you have it covered. Another really excellent lens that is out of production but still AF-S focus is the Sigma 100-300mm f4. If you find a clean copy of that lens it is excellent.

Sorry to further confuse the issue by throwing in more options...

Thanks for the info, and I will do some reading on the lenses you have suggested....so many options, so thin a wallet. I do love optimum quality and through a couple other responses I have learned that the Tamron I have is as good as the two Nikons I mentioned. So I'm putting the question to myself, if I had the Sigma 150-600 would it fit my style....meaning, would I lug it around for miles, would I take it in my kayak (flat water), can I hand hold it and shoot....cause thats what I do.

Debbie

[djg05478]

Debbie, based on personal experience with a D7100 and the Nikkor 70 -300 for wildlife, my recommendation to you is to get the Tamron 150 - 600. It is a fabulous lens, and to address your FF sub-question, I have shared images with a friend who is a "birder" with a Canon 5D3 and we both are unreserved in our liking for this lens. I win with the D7100 because of the extra effective focal length and he wins with the overall image quality of the FF that allows more aggressive cropping.

Normally advice on anything is best qualified with "YMMV" but this time there are no reservations

Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated! I wasn't considering such a big lense....but the wheels are turning now!

Debbie

[djg05478]

Debbie, look at the lens performance of your Tamron against the Nikon 28-300mm at 300mm in the links below. I chose the 28-300mm as its the better (for want of a better word) of the two lenses you mention. You will see the Tamron far out performs the Nikon so while you do get the versatility of a wide range you lose significant sharpness over the frame.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619...f456fx?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578...00vrff?start=1

Thanks for the links. I took a quick look at them earlier and I was so psyched that I understood the information....I've come a long way. And thanks for the reminder that the Tamron out performs the Nikon....I was holding onto a myth. The problem that I'm having with my Tamron is chromatic abberation / purple fringing...its driving me nuts. But as I started to read more about it I learned that there's a feature in Lightroom that I need to learn how to use that is specifically for this. Also, maybe kicking up the ISO and going f/8 or f/9 rather than having the lense wide open at 300mm might help?

Debbie

[djg05478]

Which tamron 70-300 have you got? Is it with or without vibration control (VC)? If it's the VC model, you'll have to a long way and spend some serious money to beat it quality-wise. The lenses you are looking at will be ok, but offer very little extra. Don't forget that you can also put the d7100 in 2x crop mode for even more reach in a pinch if you need it, at the cost of resolution of course.

You mention you have the wide end covered on other lenses already. You may be better served getting a second body and having one of these options on there for the wider stuff, if you find changing lenses a problem. Extra weight to carry though.

Thanks! I appreciate hearing from more than one person that the Tamron I have now, which is with the VC is better than the Nikons I was thinking of going to. I mentioned on another reply, that the chromatic abberation/purple fringing that I get with that lense is driving me nuts, but I think I just need to learn more about how to deal with that!

Debbie

[djg05478]

"No, the 300 f4 will not work as a light, trail walking lens. That is pretty specific in its purpose as a very sharp prime often used on a tripod or monopod. Look at the new Tamron 28-300 vc. I have heard good things and Tamron tends to do lightweight superzooms."

Oh...but 'sharp and prime' are two of my favorite words. I only have one prime, just the 35mm and not even the fastest one, but its just magical.
Debbie

[inkista]

... The problem that I'm having with my Tamron is chromatic abberation / purple fringing...its driving me nuts. But as I started to read more about it I learned that there's a feature in Lightroom that I need to learn how to use that is specifically for this. Also, maybe kicking up the ISO and going f/8 or f/9 rather than having the lens wide open at 300mm might help?

Definitely. Stopping down to at least f/8 will typically also increase sharpness. Few lenses are at their best wide open. I have a Zeiss 100mm lens that still exhibits LoCA (purple fringe--it's a chromatic aberration where the colors of light split back-to-front) when wide open at f/2, and it disappears if I stop down to f/2.8.

... Oh...but 'sharp and prime' are two of my favorite words. I only have one prime, just the 35mm and not even the fastest one, but its just magical. ...

The bigger ones can be, too. Unfortunately, the supertele prime lens I use on the Canon side of the fence (EF 400mm f/5.6L USM) doesn't have a Nikon opposite number.

Maybe time to decide whether your real goal is to have a superzoom for walkaround convenience, or a supertele for wildlife, and just put up with the weight/bulk. A Sigma 120-400 OS might be worth looking into, if the 300/4 is too expensive for you.

[rtbaum]

No, the 300 f4 will not work as a light, trail walking lens. That is pretty specific in its purpose as a very sharp prime often used on a tripod or monopod. Look at the new Tamron 28-300 vc. I have heard good things and Tamron tends to do lightweight superzooms.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Perhaps not the least expensive option, the Nikon 300mm f/4 phase fresnel is sharp and light....2 grand though.

[djg05478]

Definitely. Stopping down to at least f/8 will typically also increase sharpness. Few lenses are at their best wide open. I have a Zeiss 100mm lens that still exhibits LoCA (purple fringe--it's a chromatic aberration where the colors of light split back-to-front) when wide open at f/2, and it disappears if I stop down to f/2.8.


The bigger ones can be, too. Unfortunately, the supertele prime lens I use on the Canon side of the fence (EF 400mm f/5.6L USM) doesn't have a Nikon opposite number.

Maybe time to decide whether your real goal is to have a superzoom for walkaround convenience, or a supertele for wildlife, and just put up with the weight/bulk. A Sigma 120-400 OS might be worth looking into, if the 300/4 is too expensive for you.

Thats a great shot of the White-Tailed Kite. Thanks for the comments about dealing with the purple fringing. I'm getting better about it, but first thing I do is blame the equipment!

This has really been a very helpful discussion. Looks like I just need to learn how to work with the Tamron I have, so if that doesn't need replacing, looks like I could be in the market for a used supertele.

Debbie

[Dave Humphries]

The problem that I'm having with my Tamron is chromatic abberation / purple fringing...its driving me nuts. But as I started to read more about it I learned that there's a feature in Lightroom that I need to learn how to use that is specifically for this. Also, maybe kicking up the ISO and going f/8 or f/9 rather than having the lense wide open at 300mm might help?

Absolutely Debbie,

With ACR in PS, or LR, assuming it isn't an old version, this should be very easy to fix.

In ACR, I have the CA correction checkbox defaulted on (probably also possible in LR).
Beyond that, there are manual adjustments available too.

There are several good video demos of fixing CA on YouTube, I recommend you watch at least 3, I found each contributed another useful titbit of information, I was watching ACR dedicated ones, so not much point in me giving you those links as LR ones were also available.

Cheers, Dave

[inkista]

Thats a great shot of the White-Tailed Kite. Thanks for the comments about dealing with the purple fringing. I'm getting better about it, but first thing I do is blame the equipment!

The only reason we can tell you these things is because we did the same thing, too. I post this for the gazillionth time:

.

(I so love What the Duck).

... Looks like I just need to learn how to work with the Tamron I have, so if that doesn't need replacing, looks like I could be in the market for a used supertele...

Wiser woman than I. And I hope you win the lottery so you can get an AF-S 80-400 VR.