Tamron AF28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di

I'd heard for years to avoid ultra-zooms, in particular the dreaded 28-300mm as they were all hopelessly bad. Therefore it was with some trepidation that I put down the money for a lens I wasn't too sure about.

I've been surprised how happy I am with it, although there are a few caveats. (see below). This makes a good all-around "walking" lens. In other words, if you're taking your camera and don't know what you'll be taking pictures of (or only want to take one lens), this is it.

It's intended for full frame cameras, and this is where the best results come from. In particular I'm using a Nikon D700, and the almost unbelievable high ISO performance lets me simply overpower most of the lens's limitations.

First is the long zoom range, literally going from wide angle to super telephoto on a full frame camera.

The images are nice and contrasty, with good end to end rendition.

Some projects I've done, such as photographing at dinners and social events where a photographer getting in people's faces with a flash is not wanted, have been possible with this lens. I can stand at the other end of the room and quietly take pictures zooming in on my subject.

The sharpness and autofocus speed are acceptable.

This is effectively a "one size fits all" lens which is better than marching in with a 50mm prime or only an 80-200mm telephoto. However, don't get me wrong, if you have the opportunity and planning to take more lenses then you should. But just for carrying around the camera and catching shots this works great.

As with all super zooms there's distortion at the wide end and it's dim (f6.3) at the tele end. In particular this lens seems to have significant light falloff in the corners when wide open. Another trait I've seen in super zooms is bright backgrounds tend to overwhelm the image.

It's a screw drive autofocus so it's a little noisy and slow compared to the internal motor lenses.

I'm certain if I did what the magazines do and strapped this onto a tripod and took pictures of test patterns and compared them at 100% crop I'd see all kinds of issues with sharpness. However, for the work I do (where the pictures typically aren't blown up) the sharpness is just fine.

I think a lot of people forget 300mm is a long telephoto, and handheld takes a fast shutter speed to work. Even a little movement can make a picture appear "soft." Then again maybe I just got a good example.

You should check carefully the exact make when buying this lens. Tamron has made these super zooms for a long time, and the early ones aren't as good. The dewcriptive system is a little arcane, just remember the newer ones have XR and Di on them.

Upwards of 40 Nikon, Tokina, Tamon, and Russian lenses, both manual and autofocus.

Haven't used.

This is an ideal lense for someone on a budget that wants an all purpose lense. The lens gives somewhat soft images but the quality is adequate for most consumers who want prints to about 11 x 17 or jpegs for email and the internet. Does well for family and casual photographs but does not have the image quality for larger blowup prints. Images can be enhanced with Photoshop but the best images will be limited to about the 11x17 size.

Well built great price point lense. 6 year USA warranty

Soft at both ends of the zoom range. Best shot at the smaller F stops whenever possible.

Canon, Sigma and Tokina

Not needed

I originally bought this lens to replace the kit lens for the canon 300d. Not really knowing much about lenses and specs it was more of a shot in the dark. It's been a fine walk about lens. I have many nice and sharp photos taken with this lens. I personally don't find anything impressive about the looks of this lens. Knowing what I know now I'd probably save my money and buy a nicer canon lens. I was able to buy a Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L IS for $750. There's no comparison in the quality of these lenses. I should have saved my money and bought the 24-105 instead. However, this Tamron lens has served me well with some amazing photos.

Nice sharp images at shorter distances. It's a good entry level lens that's versatile and affordable.

Cheaper quality lens. Definitely not L-glass.

I wanted versatility for my Canon 7e and I got a problem lens instead. But first, the coolest part of it is its tremendous range of 28-300mm. Also, it looks very cool to see the lens extend more than twice its original length. The price you pay is the quality of the picture. The word "soft" does not explain it well; it is more "never in focus".

I ended up selling it on eBay.

To summarize, if you want to impress someone on the street with a lens that extends in and out, go for it. If you want quality pictures, look elsewhere.

Great looks

Poor picures

none "similar". Better since.

Not used

I had read several very mixed reviews of this lens but then I realized that several of the most negative people were comparing it to the Canon “L” class 28-300 EF IS (priced at $2,500.00). Oh get serious, this is a $400 lens! So my comments here reflect a comparison between this lens, a $200 Tamron 70-300mm and a Canon 75-300mm (Non IS). This is almost the lightest lens I own (I have one tiny 50mm prime that is lighter) but it still feels very solid and well constructed. When set to 28mm the lens is also physically very small though as you zoom out to 300mm you begin to feel a little silly about how far the lens extends. It carries very nicely thanks to a lock switch that will keep the lens at 28mm. The zoom is smooth and had just the right feeling of resistance to me. The focus is decently quick and not especially loud. It won’t win any speed awards but it is faster and significantly quieter than my old Tamron 70-300. It has an internal focus so the front element of the lens doesn’t rotate (filter friendly) however the focus ring DOES turn. I kept touching the edge of the focus ring with my fingers at first and had to train myself to move my grip down further. Overall I would call this lens “slightly soft”. It isn’t terrible though I think serious photographers will start to frown if the images were blown up much past 8x10. Again I comment that it’s a $400 lens, not “L” class glass. At it’s best it is a little better than either my older Tamron 70-300 or the Canon 75-300. At it’s worst it is pretty much equal to either of those lenses. This lens hits it’s stride at f6.7 and up. However mine has a couple of odd spots (exactly at 28mm and 100mm) where it just stays soft no matter what I do. With f6.3 at the long end you will probably never get a good handheld shot at 250mm and up unless it is VERY bright outside. So why do I rate this lens so highly? Overall capability. I had a big protest coming up that I needed to photograph and due to the nature of the event I was going to need to pack light and be able to move fast. This lens on a Canon 10D gave me the full range I needed without ever pausing to change glass. Not changing lenses kept out the dirt/dust/grit thrown up by 15,000 protesters walking around (you would be AMAZED at how much crud that throws up into the air). Using only one lens and one body was very light and greatly reduced fatigue on this all day shoot. And finally, the light conditions were terrible! Even with overcast conditions and high ISO on the camera I still got good shots throughout the day. In summary, if you are looking for a studio portrait or fine-art lens, this is NOT it, you won’t be happy with the sharpness. However if you need something light and adaptable with an enormous range of coverage that won’t break the bank (photojournalists, tourists, etc) you simply can’t go wrong for the price.

-Light -Compact -Feels Solid -Avoid lens swaps -Great for photojournalists and tourists

-Slightly soft overall, especially at 28mm and 100mm. Not the best lens for portraits and studio fine art shots. -Very slow at the long end (f6.3) no handheld 300mm shots with this one! -Doesn't seem to quite reach 300mm, more like 280mm.

-Tamron 572D 70-300mm -Canon 75-300mm (Non IS) -Canon 70-200 f/4 L

none needed