Unless there's a specific reason you'd want to start at 50mm, I'd go for the 28-300 for its smaller size and versatility. For street or vacation/travel photography that extra field of view and smaller size would come in handy. You demonstrated the difference in tight spaces nicely. There's not enough difference between the two , it's the 28 for me. Great work, as usual a very informative and fun video. You deserve more subs and views.
Great thinking there thank you. And thanks for the kind words. I am leaning in your direction regarding the 28 being the better option! Thanks again for your support
Lovely review! Is it possible for you to upload your sharpness test and samples in your description? I would appreciate it a lot to be able to view them outside of RUclips. Thanks in advance!
I have read and seen every review I could find, even in other languages, but only 3-4 shared full resolution images. They seemed to have mediocre copies, but it soinds like you got a good one, which can show the actual potential. You could upload the images on Flickr or somewhere else and share it in the description of this video. Again, would be much appreciated!
That's interesting that you heard about mediocre copies. Tamron is usually pretty consistent with quality control these days. I will look into the possibility of uploading some images. Thanks for the comment
@@techtoremember8096 They are, yes, but most of the reviews claim that the corners are almost unusuablle at 28mm, and that the 50-300mm is noticeably better at the tele end. You seem to have gotten a very good copy. If it's as good as you claim, I could see myself getting the 28-300mm, mostly due to its size. I mostly use some primes; Laowa 9mm f/5.6, Sigma 17mm f/4, Sony 40mm f/2.5 and Sigma 90mm f/2.8, but sometimes I just want to bring one lens (like the 28-300mm) and perhaps the Sigma 17mm. Anyway, hope that you're able to upload some images, and keep up the good work!
I have used the 28-200 and the 50-300 and... I have to say, I don't know if I was lucky, but my 50-300 copy was so unbelievably sharp, it was actually sharper than my prime lenses! Only problem I had with this lens, was its low light performance - I was forced to use high iso, so I've decided to try 28-200 - but now I'm thinking going back to 50-300 - the 28-200 is not that sharp, not even close, even though I can use faster shutter. I think the VC actually makes huge difference here - but switching from 28-200 I surely will miss the wide end! So now I think trying out the 28-300 😂
@@edc641 Wow, that is high praise for the 28-200 given how great a lens the 50-400 is. The OP saying it was much less sharp than even the 50-300 has me conflicted now. On paper the 28-200 seems like the ideal lens for my intended use case of travel "do-to-it-all".
@@nSpiraliArchitectb Went hiking for 9 days in September. Super heavy (and full) backpack with all the food, tent, sleeping gear and stuff so I only wanted to bring a single lens with my camera (also because I don't like switching lenses in harsh environments far from civilization). Picking the 28-200 was a no-brainer. For a single lens the zoom range is hard to beat. 50mm (50-400) would've been too narrow, and the 28-200 is half the weight. It's not perfect, obviously, but it's simply a really good lens. I love my 50-400 and when I go on shorter hikes/trips, where weight and space saving is not of highest prio, I tend to bring that lens over the 28-200. It just feels more solid. But the 28-200 is close enough for me not to bother about the difference in IQ. It's the faster lens too. F/2.8 at 28mm for that kind of lens is incredible. Haven't used the 28-300 myself, but based on what I've seen of that lens I'd guess the 28-200 is the better choice, unless you need the extra 100mm.
how about 28-300 VS 28-400? I know it's different ! nikon and sony LOL But I only have D5300. it's so old so I want buy new one. I am think about zf and a7Cr. think
I dont have a Nikon to test on but my friend has the 28-400 and says its very good sharp the zoom range. Just be aware the Nikon brightest aperture is f8 at 400mm so its even a bit darker than the Sony
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
I have the 28-300. It's a great lens for my needs. I wanted a one size fits all travel lens.
The best review for these new Tamron super-zoom lenses.. I bought the 50 to 300 lens and it is working amazingly with me ..
Thanks so much ! Yes that’s a great lens
Nice video❤ Thanks for sharing🎉
very solid and useful review and comparison between these two lenses. great job!
Thanks so much !!!
Unless there's a specific reason you'd want to start at 50mm, I'd go for the 28-300 for its smaller size and versatility. For street or vacation/travel photography that extra field of view and smaller size would come in handy. You demonstrated the difference in tight spaces nicely. There's not enough difference between the two , it's the 28 for me. Great work, as usual a very informative and fun video. You deserve more subs and views.
Great thinking there thank you. And thanks for the kind words. I am leaning in your direction regarding the 28 being the better option! Thanks again for your support
I'd get the 28-300.
Wow the subscriber count is going up now! Great stuff! So happy for you as my favourite photography channel.
Thanks so much! Really appreciate your support. Have a great day
Lovely review!
Is it possible for you to upload your sharpness test and samples in your description? I would appreciate it a lot to be able to view them outside of RUclips.
Thanks in advance!
I have read and seen every review I could find, even in other languages, but only 3-4 shared full resolution images. They seemed to have mediocre copies, but it soinds like you got a good one, which can show the actual potential.
You could upload the images on Flickr or somewhere else and share it in the description of this video. Again, would be much appreciated!
That's interesting that you heard about mediocre copies. Tamron is usually pretty consistent with quality control these days. I will look into the possibility of uploading some images. Thanks for the comment
@@techtoremember8096
They are, yes, but most of the reviews claim that the corners are almost unusuablle at 28mm, and that the 50-300mm is noticeably better at the tele end.
You seem to have gotten a very good copy. If it's as good as you claim, I could see myself getting the 28-300mm, mostly due to its size.
I mostly use some primes; Laowa 9mm f/5.6, Sigma 17mm f/4, Sony 40mm f/2.5 and Sigma 90mm f/2.8, but sometimes I just want to bring one lens (like the 28-300mm) and perhaps the Sigma 17mm.
Anyway, hope that you're able to upload some images, and keep up the good work!
@@techtoremember8096
Hi again.
Not to push you, but have you looked in to sharing the images? If it isn't possible, then that's that.
I have used the 28-200 and the 50-300 and... I have to say, I don't know if I was lucky, but my 50-300 copy was so unbelievably sharp, it was actually sharper than my prime lenses! Only problem I had with this lens, was its low light performance - I was forced to use high iso, so I've decided to try 28-200 - but now I'm thinking going back to 50-300 - the 28-200 is not that sharp, not even close, even though I can use faster shutter. I think the VC actually makes huge difference here - but switching from 28-200 I surely will miss the wide end! So now I think trying out the 28-300 😂
So many choices!!! Would be nice to have them all wouldn't it?
I have the 28-200 and 50-400. Love them both, and my 28-200 is not far behind the 50-400 in IQ.
@@edc641 Wow, that is high praise for the 28-200 given how great a lens the 50-400 is. The OP saying it was much less sharp than even the 50-300 has me conflicted now. On paper the 28-200 seems like the ideal lens for my intended use case of travel "do-to-it-all".
@@nSpiraliArchitectb Went hiking for 9 days in September. Super heavy (and full) backpack with all the food, tent, sleeping gear and stuff so I only wanted to bring a single lens with my camera (also because I don't like switching lenses in harsh environments far from civilization). Picking the 28-200 was a no-brainer. For a single lens the zoom range is hard to beat. 50mm (50-400) would've been too narrow, and the 28-200 is half the weight. It's not perfect, obviously, but it's simply a really good lens. I love my 50-400 and when I go on shorter hikes/trips, where weight and space saving is not of highest prio, I tend to bring that lens over the 28-200. It just feels more solid. But the 28-200 is close enough for me not to bother about the difference in IQ. It's the faster lens too. F/2.8 at 28mm for that kind of lens is incredible. Haven't used the 28-300 myself, but based on what I've seen of that lens I'd guess the 28-200 is the better choice, unless you need the extra 100mm.
@@edc641 Thank you, seems the 28-200 is the lens for me.
Nice video, but I just *loved* the jokes and the movie references... Hope you won't stop. Liked 'n subscribed 😁
Haha That’s great to hear ! Thanks so much for the support
how about 28-300 VS 28-400?
I know it's different ! nikon and sony LOL
But I only have D5300. it's so old so I want buy new one.
I am think about zf and a7Cr. think
I dont have a Nikon to test on but my friend has the 28-400 and says its very good sharp the zoom range. Just be aware the Nikon brightest aperture is f8 at 400mm so its even a bit darker than the Sony