Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I haven't tried any of these lenses. Before checking the reviews, my initial impression was that the Nikon 70-300mm would be the best lens of this group. After reading reviews, that impression stands. The reviews generally confirm the adage that you get no more than what you pay for.
Cliffs before the wall of text:
Compared to their Nikon equivalent, the Sigma and Tamron lenses are generally less sharp, have less accurate and slower autofocus, have more distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting, fewer features, lower build quality, and lower expected durability. They are also significantly less expensive. Generally, as zoom range increases, so do the price:quality ratio and distortion, while sharpness decreases. TANSTAAFL.
-------------
The details:
The Nikon 70-300mm is a clear choice here, IMO. Compared to all the other lenses, it is significantly sharper, and its autofocus is more accurate. Of these five, it is the only one with an autofocus fast enough to reliably handle moving subjects. If you are only photographing still life, you may ignore this consideration, (but why do you want a 300mm lens on an APS-C body if you are not shooting moving wildlife?). It has less vignetting and distortion than the others. The Nikon also has less chromatic aberration (CA) than all the the others except the Nikon 55-300 DX. The 70-300mm lens, along with the Sigma and the Tamron 28-300, can be used on full frame bodies. On DX bodies therefore, it will be even more sharp and have even less vignetting, since the outer part of the imaging circle (where the problems usually show up) will not be used. Its major downsides are that it is bigger and heavier than the others (40%-50% more, but still nowhere near the size/mass of a professional f/2.8 lens) and does not have the close focus performance (under 1.4m) of the non-Nikon macro lenses. From what you have said before, I didn't think you were looking for a macro lens.
The Nikon 55-300 DX is sharper than the non-Nikon lenses and has the least CA of all five. It has more distortion than all except the Tamron 18-270 (and maybe the Sigma). It has some vignetting problems wide open. Its autofocus is better than all the others except the Nikon 70-300, but may be too slow for distant moving subjects. It can only be used on DX bodies (like your D80). Unlike most Nikon lenses these days, this one doesn't provide manual override in autofocus mode. Like the Tamrons and the Sigma, you have to switch it to manual focus mode before you can manually adjust focus.
The Tamrons and the Sigma are 1/3 stop narrower at the long end, and thus exceed the usual guidelines for autofocus systems. This may be why they don't focus as well as the Nikons.
The Sigma appears to have been discontinued. Some dealers may still have a few units in stock. I haven't been able to get as detailed reviews of it as of the other four lenses. On the whole its performance does not appear to have been significantly better then the Tamrons, and may have been worse in some aspects. It doesn't seem to have any stabilization. Stabilization is pretty standard on tele-zooms, and a must if you are off-tripod and shooting at longer focal lengths.
Tamron seems to continue to have quality control problems. There is a lot of inconsistency between samples. Some are good, others have focus or sharpness issues.
The Tamron 18-270mm has an exceptionally large zoom ratio of 15:1. Lenses of this sort invariable have distortion that is more pronounced and more complex. This is no exception. It underperforms both Nikons in every category, except of course that it covers the wide end of the focal length range. It is only for use on DX cameras.
The Tamron 28-300 is better than the 18-270 in the 28-55mm focal length range, but gets appreciably less sharp than the 18-270 at the long focal lengths. making it the least sharp lens in the group. It has less distortion than the Nikon 55-300 DX and the Tamron 18-270. It has no signifcant vignetting, but does have major chromatic aberration when wide open. It can be used on full frame bodies.
I notice that you didn't include the Nikon 28-300mm VR. This full-frame lens is Nikon's equivalent to the Sigma and Tamron 28-300 lenses. Perhaps you excluded it on the ground of cost. According to SLR Gear's review, you may also want to exclude it on the grounds that its sharpness is no better than the Tamrons in the mid-range, and may be worse at shorter focal lengths. Unlike some full-frame lenses, it may not be at its sharpest at the centre of the image circle. This review result may be an anomaly, however. Many other reviews don't find the same degree of softness. Photozone, for instance, disagrees and proclams its sharpness good for a superzoom (it doesn't test the Tamrons or the Sigma), but cites signficant distortion and noticeable vignetting. The distortion, however, is less complex than on many superzooms, so may be easily corrected in post. Photographyblog.com also seems well pleased for sharpness in a super-zoom, but doesn't deign to deal with off-brands like Tamron. Ken Rockwell calls it "super-sharp" but points out the distortion and vignetting. The vigneting shouldn't be a problem on your DX body, and the distortion is easily corrected in post-processing. Unlike the other two Nikons, this one focuses about as close as the Tamrons and the Sigma.
On a DX body, a 28mm focal length is no shorter than a normal lens. It is no surprise that all three 28-300 mm lenses are capable of being used on FX bodies. They were designed as all-in-one lenses for full frame cameras. They just aren't short enough for that role on a DX body. If you want a superzoom, get the Nikon 18-200mm DX. It's the best superzoom out there IMO. All superzooms compromise image quality to increase versatility. Nikon's 18-200mm DX compromises IQ less, but you pay for it. Probably the same can be said for its 28-300mm. Any maker's superzoom will be optically inferior to their tele-zoom.
Do you really need to get to 300mm? What will you use an EFL of 450mm for? A fair portion of my shooting is wildlfe on a DX body, and I don't have a lens longer than 200mm (300mm equivalent on DX). I do have a 1.7x teleconverter for my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens though, which gives me a full frame equivalent of 180-510mm at a constant f/4.8. I use this combination mostly for birds, or when I cannot get closer to the subject. Generally, over about 300mm EFL, (200mm on DX) getting closer to your subject gives a better shot than using a longer focal length.
If getting a 300mm lens on DX is really that important, you're probably better off with a 70-300mm or the 55-300mm. Consider what Sigma and Tamron have in 70-300mm. The Sigma is less sharp than the Nikon(even more so at the outer edges, which won't matter on a DX body) and more cheaply made, but less than half the cost. The Tamron is also less sharp, especially so wide open or at longer focal lengths and has more CA. It is even cheaper than the Sigma. Neither the Tamron nor thr Sigma include stabilization, which makes them pretty well tripod-bound for longer focal lengths.
Tokina doesn't make a lens that goes to 300mm. It has a couple of 80-400mm models, but I know nothing about them, other than they are small and light. If they are comparable to other Tokina products they might be better (and more expensive) than equivalent Tamron models.
In the end it comes down to price vs. quality. If you are comparing your Tamron wide angle to your Nikon 18-135mm and you're "reasonbly satisfied", then maybe image sharpness isn't all that important to you. The 18-135 is very sharp except when stopped way down at long focal lengths. The Tamron 10-24 isn't very sharp anywhere except the centre of the image circle unless you stop it down to about f/8 or more. However smaller apertures are common for many uses of an ultra-wide angle lens, so you may not have noticed and it might not matter to you. It has high CA and really bad vignetting. Distortion isn't great. OTOH the 18-135 has high distortion and signficant vignetting. It is not a lens that gives you an idea of what a good lens can do. It was so unsuccessful that Nikon quickly discontinued it in favour of the 18-105mm DX.
Last edited by DoTheMath; 02-12-2012 at 03:02 PM.