Nikon 28-300mm - very disappointed (Page 6): I have the same d600 with the same lens, I love it . will try to attach some pics !! just took these as examples. the box was at about 22...

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

I have the same d600 with the same lens, I love it . will try to attach some pics !! just took these as examples. the box was at about 22 ft at 300mm and again at about 4 ft at 28mm, the globe was at about 5 ft for both at 28 and 300mm. the 22 ft shot of the box at 400 iso 1/25 sec handheld, all were at 400 iso and handheld, Hope this helps !!

Attached file:
(Download)

(Download)

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

MT Shooter wrote:

Did you buy it new or used? If new I would suggest a trip to Nikon to have it looked at under warranty.
But if you bought it used I think you bought someone elses problem!
Its a good lens on your 24MP body and should be giving you better results. Don't use it on the D800's or the D850 though.

MT: I am curious why you told the OP not use the 28-300 on the 800 series of Nikon cameras.

Horatio

As was mentioned earlier, I do believe that you purchased someone else's problem. My experience with this lens has been very good.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

MT Shooter wrote:

Did you buy it new or used? If new I would suggest a trip to Nikon to have it looked at under warranty.
But if you bought it used I think you bought someone elses problem!
Its a good lens on your 24MP body and should be giving you better results. Don't use it on the D800's or the D850 though.

He said it was used.

therwol Loc: USA

westjl2 wrote:

Am doing some traveling this year so purchased a s... (show quote)

Not the sharpest lens in test reports, however so many people on this forum use and like this lens that I have to conclude you got a bad copy. Maybe it was dropped. Who knows?

westjl2 Loc: Calgary, Alberta

JeffDavidson wrote:

Perhaps because you bought a full frame and are spending money for an FX that you are using as a DX. Just a thought.

Hi Jeff,

Not sure if your comment was for me, however I am using this FX lens on an FX D600 Camera in FX mode.

westjl2 Loc: Calgary, Alberta

therwol wrote:

Not the sharpest lens in test reports, however so many people on this forum use and like this lens that I have to conclude you got a bad copy. Maybe it was dropped. Who knows?

I am glad to hear that most others seem happy. Those who are not happy are probably doing what I did and compared it to a very sharp lens. As you say it is not the sharpest lens and I may be over reacting a bit. I am probably spoiled with my other lenses. I will keep using it and am learning a few nuances about it that is helping me get somewhat better results already.

westjl2 Loc: Calgary, Alberta

Flash Falasca wrote:

I have the same d600 with the same lens, I love it . will try to attach some pics !! just took these as examples. the box was at about 22 ft at 300mm and again at about 4 ft at 28mm, the globe was at about 5 ft for both at 28 and 300mm. the 22 ft shot of the box at 400 iso 1/25 sec handheld, all were at 400 iso and handheld, Hope this helps !!

Thanks. I find that this lens is good at close in shots like this. What I am still a bit disappointed in is this lens is pretty soft at shooting anything beyond 25 yards out at 300mm. It is just not as crisp as my 70-300mm FX I had previously. But I am going to keep at it. We are going on two trips this year and I decided to get this lens as my one size fits all rather than carrying multiple lens. I will bring my little nifty 50mm 1.8 D along as well and may end up using it a lot if this one gets too heavy.

Jim

SAVH Loc: La Jolla, CA

I have been using the 28-300mm zoom on my Nikon D-800 for several years and have been extremely happy with the results. If I am constrained by how many extra lenses or equipment I can carry, the 28-300 has been my "go to" lens. I have had great luck inside cathedrals by increasing the ISO. As to the vignetting problem, check your filters. I do note that if I have both a UV and a polarizing filter on and try to take wide angle shots, I get some vignetting. So I take off the polarizing filter. I also try to buy thin UV filters.

therwol Loc: USA

westjl2 wrote:

Thanks. I find that this lens is good at close in ... (show quote)

When I bought my Nikon D810 a couple of years ago, I went crazy comparing lenses I owned and bought later.. Yes, you can see some differences. The primes I own tend to be sharper and have less distortion than any of the zooms.

Pixel peeping can be very addicting. I think I've broken the habit. For all practical purposes, it doesn't make as much difference to me as I thought it would. I'm not making murals, and in any size I'm likely to make a print, I'm not going to see much of a difference at a normal viewing distance. I'm not saying that this meets the needs of everyone.

ecurb1105

mleuck wrote:

Does anyone here have a clue what they are talking about?

Yes

donsyler

My favorite "travel lens" has always been my 18 - 135mm, (Canon). Longer focal lengths, especially above 200mm, will generally not provide clear focus without a tripod. The 135mm is, of course, a bit of a trade-off, as it limits some wildlife shots, but it is light-weight and has consistently provided extremely clear photos, even in some pretty adverse conditions.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

My favorite is my 18x140. Serves me well.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

westjl2 wrote:

Thanks. I find that this lens is good at close in ... (show quote)

Your 70-300 lens is just a 4X lens. As cjc2 has already observed, this is a 10X lens, and once you go to that much zoom, the designers are forced into too many compromises to get edge-to-edge needle sharpness at the various focal lengths.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

indiana: MT did explain that thoroughly earlier in the discussion.