houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

I've heard plenty of nice comments about the Nikon AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G Lens. I realize its not AF-S so it will only AF on bodies with a focus motor, and the focus will be slower, but neither of those issues are a concern for me. I have a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 for when I need the best, but am looking for a lighter, more flexible lens walkaround lens when I don't want to carry a lot of weight and don't mind giving up 4mm at the wide end.

For any Hoggers who have used this lens, how does it do for quality images, and how well does the Nikon AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6D Lens compare to the G version?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Let me start by saying that I have not used a Nikon 28-200 G or D lens. The lens I use instead is the 28-105 D which in my opinion is a great lens, well made and sharp.
The photo samples I have seen from the 28-200 are very good and in regard to differences between both lenses I can tell you that the D lens is better built. The G lens has a plastic mount (I have nothing against it) while the D lens has a metal mount. The G lens has aspherical and LD glass and it is my understanding that the D type has asphericals only. LD glass can handle color aberrations better but that is not always the case, especially with lenses under 200 mm.
I think that for a walk around lens both 28-200 should serve you well especially if you use your camera and lens on a tripod.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You can do comparisons here.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

CO

Ken Rockwell has good reviews of both of those lenses here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200af.htm

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Please look at the 28-300 for FF. You will have better reach and while I have both the 28-200, and the 28-300, at least with the two lenses I have, the latter is far better. I find it to be sharp throughout the entire range while the 28-200 has a couple of soft spots. Another advantage is that the 28-300 will close focus to around 9" at all focal lengths. If you are shooting a flower from less than a foot away at 300mm, you practically have a macro lens. When I head out for a day of wandering around looking for something to shoot, I put a 16-35 on my D800 and the 28-300 on my D7000. This way I have everything from 16mm to 450mm covered including for all practical purposes macro shots.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

You are the second person in two days who has mentioned the 28-300 for full frame. Does it have VR? Do you have any shots are 300 that you would be able to display?

Im looking for a good sharp 300mm lens with close focus distance for shooting butterflies. Thanks!

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

The AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G certainly has an excellent reputation and is a great all-around performer with tremendous range. However, I am looking for a small, lightweight walk-around lens. The 28-300 is much larger than the 28-200 and over twice the weight. Not to mention cost; the 28-200mm runs around $350 used while the 28-300mm is $700+ used if you can find one and $1050 new.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Yes to VR. Here are two shots from yesterday showing the versatility of this lens.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I have the 28-300 G, and use it on a FX 750 as well as DX 7100. I would classify it as a good, very versatile lens. It is not the sharpest, and I'm not fond of the variable aperture. But that's because I am frequently shooting in low light, and trying to squeeze out every stop I can. I do find the VR effective. As for close focus, I believe it will only focus to roughly 18 inches.

Like many wide-range zooms, the effective focal length drops off considerably as you focus closer, i.e. if your subject is 2 feet away and you zoom in to 300mm, your subject will appear the same as if you had used a 130mm lens. It is a very versatile lens, though. With both bodies, it covers 28mm-450mm for me.

kskarma Loc: Topeka, KS

Is this "sharp" enough for you?? (OUCH!!!)

Be sure to download the full size image to judge the sharpness of this lens...this shot is actually a composite photo..done with Focus Stacking. It is made from two separately focused images, the right side is focused on the nearby Saguaro, the left section was focused on the more distant portions of the scene. Additionally, it was taken handheld, so the VR probably helped a bit. The image was blended using CombineZP, a free bit of software that has the magical ability to find the sharpest portions of individual frames and blend those sections into a final image such as you see here.

My 28-300mm nearly always mounted on one of my Nikon D-750s...the other D-750 mounts a Sigma 17-35mm f2.8. This combo of bodies/lenses gives me nearly every focal length I ever need...

(Download)