Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

I have read plenty about the 28-300mm zoom lens and most reports indicate an excessive amount of distortion and extreme vignetting; practically speaking, is the lens really worth having. According to some, it is the ideal traveling lens because you don't have to carry anything else: it replaces most of your lenses. Your comments and opinions will be appreciated.

346pak Loc: Texas

A friend of mine has this lens and loves it. I keep with my 16-36 f4, 24-120 f4, 80-200 f2.8 and 150-600 f5.6. All zooms are compromises so I try to keep those compromises to a minimum on my lenses but, that is me. For convenience, the 28-300 would be hard to beat.

laborelch Loc: MD

After reading plenty online reviews, I sprung for it (for Xmas) - as you said to use it as travel and walk-around lens, when I don't want to carry the holy trinity. I haven't seen signs of distortion and vignetting yet - but then, I haven't tested it extensively. For what it's supposed to do it does it just fine. Decently fast, quiet and light enough to walk around on a D810 with hand-strap or diagonal shoulder strap. Have not noticed any lens creep either. Built quite nicely - not like a f/2.8, but doesn't look/feel cheaply made either. There are plenty of places to rent it for a week for about $120-150 if you want to test it before you buy :-)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Every person is different, what you consider excessive amounts of distortion and extreme vignetting might not be important to someone or anyone else. My advice has always been to rent or go to your local brick and mortar store and have a day with the lens. Then YOU will know if it has excessive amounts of distortion and extreme vignetting. Thousands of people have been satisfied with THIS lens. So, obviously excessive amounts of distortion and extreme vignetting does not bother these thousands of people. The only way to see if it bothers you is to rent or try one out. With that said this lens is really not a carry around lens, it is an all purpose lens but certainly not a carry around all day lens, IT IS HEAVY.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I purchased that lens a couple of years ago, as memory serves. It's been on my cameras 95% of the time. It's with me on a daily basis. Most of the images posted here over the last couple of years were shot with that lens. I've seen no issues with it.
--Bob

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Thank you for your feedback.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Good comment. Thank you very much.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Good to know. I am seriously considering it.

MikieLBS Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

I got one for an all purpose lens, when I have to travel light and know I might want to capture both wildlife and landscapes.. I am lens poor though so I very seldom use it but I always marvel at the fine quality of the photos when I do.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

My 28-300 doesn't produce "excessive amount of distortion and extreme vignettting." It is a compromise, and I don't use it everyday; but for travel when changing lenses is not practicable, it serves a purpose well.
There are so many contrasting opinions on this lens----rent it and make a decision based on that experience.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Vignetting and barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion can be fixed with a camera profile during post processing or in the camera if you use a camera that allows you to fix these issues when it processes a jpg.

My experience with the lens was awful performance at the edges and corners at almost every focal length, and poor center performance beyond 120mm. I wanted to love this lens, but after trying several different copies of this lens I decided it had no place in my camera bag. I try not to compromise image quality for convenience. I hate it when I look at an image and wish I had "my better lens" on the camera when I took the picture. By not having one, I avoid ever feeling that. I also don't make a distinction between "casual" and photography for hire. If you do, then the 28-300 may be ok. It doesn't work for me.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Good point. Thanks.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Your comment is quite a departure from the general assessment of this lens being adequate as a "stay on my camera lens". I tend to agree with you in that for the sake of convenience its image quality is seriously compromised. Thank you for your opinion.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

It is a given that no one wants to compromise on image quality. All want to produce the best images possible wherever the shutter is released: casual or "photography for hire".
But, for snapshots of the grandkids at Disney World; I will carry the 28-300 in lieu of the Holy Trinity, and two or three 1.4 primes. I might look at an image and wish I had used "my better lens"; but, all things are kept in perspective.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I do two kinds of photography: photos for others and photos for myself.

For others, I generally use the trinity plus: 14-24-70-200-500. With a couple bodies, it's two bags worth of stuff to carry around and probably over 20 lb.

For myself, I use one body with the 28-300. For personal use, I don't demand perfection. I'm taking family shots or vacation photos. The family shots are probably the more important ones that I hope will last longer than I will. Vacation shots are nice for me to look at, but they could be boring when I inflict them on others.

The 14-24-70-200-500 produce the sharpest images I can get. I have noticed that the 28-300 is less sharp then the trinity+ lenses but for personal use the difference is negligible. If you're taking photos for others that will wind up online or in a newsletter, the 28-300 produces images that would be perfectly satisfactory in terms of sharpness. Color, composition, and minimal lens motion are all up to you.

The 28-300 is on my camera less than 50% of the time, but if I only look at "My" photos, it's probably more like 95%. (I do do some closeups with the 105 Micro).