Considering a new lens for Nikon
Jun 22, 2017 08:13:32 #
I will be traveling thru Greece and Italy in late September
and am considering getting the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 lens
for all around general photo use.
I have 24-70 f2.8 Sigma & 70-200 f2.8 Tamron and a fisheye
as well as a 150-500 Sigma.
Too much stuff to carry around and also board ships and planes.
Looking for confirmation that the 28-300 is a good choice.
Pros & Cons please. (I already know about low light).
and am considering getting the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 lens
for all around general photo use.
I have 24-70 f2.8 Sigma & 70-200 f2.8 Tamron and a fisheye
as well as a 150-500 Sigma.
Too much stuff to carry around and also board ships and planes.
Looking for confirmation that the 28-300 is a good choice.
Pros & Cons please. (I already know about low light).
Jun 22, 2017 08:15:15 #
My niece bought that lenses before a recent Alaskan cruise and loves it.
Jun 22, 2017 08:31:04 #
kcj
Loc: Seneca SC
I use mine all the time. It is very clear and you definitely have a lens that not only is a decent wide angle but a great telephoto. You would be very happy.
Jun 22, 2017 08:40:34 #
Vinman wrote:
I will be traveling thru Greece and Italy in late September
and am considering getting the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 lens
for all around general photo use.
I have 24-70 f2.8 Sigma & 70-200 f2.8 Tamron and a fisheye
as well as a 150-500 Sigma.
Too much stuff to carry around and also board ships and planes.
Looking for confirmation that the 28-300 is a good choice.
Pros & Cons please. (I already know about low light).
and am considering getting the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 lens
for all around general photo use.
I have 24-70 f2.8 Sigma & 70-200 f2.8 Tamron and a fisheye
as well as a 150-500 Sigma.
Too much stuff to carry around and also board ships and planes.
Looking for confirmation that the 28-300 is a good choice.
Pros & Cons please. (I already know about low light).
My husband has the 18-300 on his crop sensor & loves it. Me, not so much!
Jun 22, 2017 08:44:58 #
Very flexible lens. Sharpest images around F8. Very nice for portraits wide open and about 100-120mm. What body is it going on?
Jun 22, 2017 08:46:36 #
I own many Nikon peo lenses. When I travel, and need to minimize the load, I dust off and use my 28-300. It is totally acceptable for most serious amateurs.
Jun 22, 2017 08:46:46 #
It's a great lens but if it were me I would also pick up a 14-24mm Nikon f2.8 (or equivalent) for those shots that you just can't get at 24mm and above.
Jun 22, 2017 08:48:38 #
I tried the Nikon you spoke about and the Tamron 28-300. I thought the quality of images were pretty much identical and the Tamron was lighter
and less expensive, at least at the time I bought it. I don't regret purchasing the Tamron and used it a lot on my trip through the UK and Ireland, however
I found most of my images were taken in the 28-50mm range. On my next trip, I'll likely use my 58mm Voigtlander and 16-35 Nikon far more than the Tamron.
Overall, either the Nikon or the Tamron are good walk around lenses. I will say at 300mm and at 28mm there is a fair amount of vignetting. I think I took one shot
around 300mm anyway in almost 2 weeks of traveling. Again, most of my shots were in the 28-50 range. I used my 28mm Nikon lens more than I thought I would and if I had my 16-35 at the time, it would have been my lens of choice more than the 28-300. However, for a walk around lens, it was fine.
Mike
and less expensive, at least at the time I bought it. I don't regret purchasing the Tamron and used it a lot on my trip through the UK and Ireland, however
I found most of my images were taken in the 28-50mm range. On my next trip, I'll likely use my 58mm Voigtlander and 16-35 Nikon far more than the Tamron.
Overall, either the Nikon or the Tamron are good walk around lenses. I will say at 300mm and at 28mm there is a fair amount of vignetting. I think I took one shot
around 300mm anyway in almost 2 weeks of traveling. Again, most of my shots were in the 28-50 range. I used my 28mm Nikon lens more than I thought I would and if I had my 16-35 at the time, it would have been my lens of choice more than the 28-300. However, for a walk around lens, it was fine.
Mike
Jun 22, 2017 09:38:49 #
Jun 22, 2017 11:19:25 #
I use the Nikon 70-300mm as a walk around lens. It is very sharp and light weight
Jun 22, 2017 13:01:09 #
That is the single lens I travel with. I might bring the Sigma 24mm, if I was going to be doing nightime shooting.
Jun 22, 2017 13:21:44 #
Vinman wrote:
I will be traveling thru Greece and Italy in late September
and am considering getting the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 lens
for all around general photo use.
I have 24-70 f2.8 Sigma & 70-200 f2.8 Tamron and a fisheye
as well as a 150-500 Sigma.
Too much stuff to carry around and also board ships and planes.
Looking for confirmation that the 28-300 is a good choice.
Pros & Cons please. (I already know about low light).
and am considering getting the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 lens
for all around general photo use.
I have 24-70 f2.8 Sigma & 70-200 f2.8 Tamron and a fisheye
as well as a 150-500 Sigma.
Too much stuff to carry around and also board ships and planes.
Looking for confirmation that the 28-300 is a good choice.
Pros & Cons please. (I already know about low light).
I had this lens and although it is better than many reviews indicate, it is one big compromise and costly.
More than likely you won't be taking many long shots of scenery, if any at all. A lot of great scenes begging for wide angle. Save you money and take the 24-70, it will handle what you need.
Jun 22, 2017 13:52:09 #
Jun 22, 2017 13:55:52 #
Jun 22, 2017 14:27:33 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.