24-120mm vs. 28-300mm: Saw today's posts about the 24-120mm lens which got good ratings from the group. For those that might have been trying to possibly decide between that lens and...

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

Saw today's posts about the 24-120mm lens which got good ratings from the group.

For those that might have been trying to possibly decide between that lens and the 28-300mm, what were the deciding factors for your final choice?

Obviously the 28-300mm has the 180mm added reach, but was more interested in what was felt to be the quality of the lenses in producing acceptable pictures.

As always, thanking you in advance for your feedback.

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

The Villages wrote:

Saw today's posts about the 24-120mm lens which got good ratings from the group.

For those that might have been trying to possibly decide between that lens and the 28-300mm, what were the deciding factors for your final choice?

Obviously the 28-300mm has the 180mm added reach, but was more interested in what was felt to be the quality of the lenses in producing acceptable pictures.

As always, thanking you in advance for your feedback.

I own both lenses. I view each as a tool. If I need speed and blurred backgrounds and a PEOPLE lens, I use the 24-120. If, on the other hand, I am going on a small trip and I want to take one lens and speed is not an issue then the 28-300 is the lens I want.
Now, everyone should know by now I pay NO attention to bench lab scores. I use my lenses in the REAL world. IMHO, for 99% of the shots I shoot with these two, I see no difference in sharpness. Again, neither of these lenses are my favorite NIKON lens. I view them as tools to use for different purposes.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

billnikon wrote:

I own both lenses. I view each as a tool. If I nee... (show quote)

Appreciate the reply. As far as size and weight, from what I've read the 28-300 is big and heavy....but much differnt from the 24-120?

dogo88

Upgraded from my D300 with 18-200mm VR lens to a D750 kit with the 24-120mm lens. I had done the calculations and this new setup was a bit less in weight. I figured if the 24-120mm produced good pics I would keep it. But we're off to Alaska on a cruise this May, and after a bunch of pics with the new camera and lens I really missed that extra 180mm. I figured I would really miss it more on our trip.

So I read the reviews and picked up a refurb 28-300mm from B&H. Took a bunch of pics and compared. I was pleasantly surprised that not only was the 28-300mm better in close ups but the famous lens creep you always had on the 18-200 DX was missing. Pics compared to the 24-120mm looked just as good. I'm no professional but I was pleased. It does weight a bit more but not too bad.

Thought I might keep the 24-120mm as a lightweight spare lens but I have a problem of hanging on to things well past their sell value. So I sold it to B&H since I knew I would never use it.

Just my 2 cents.

Dan

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

dogo88 wrote:

Upgraded from my D300 with 18-200mm VR lens to a D... (show quote)

Thanks Dan for the insight.

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

The Villages wrote:

Appreciate the reply. As far as size and weight, from what I've read the 28-300 is big and heavy....but much differnt from the 24-120?

I could say that is easy to look up for yourself, but, I won't cause I am trying to be nice. The 28-300 is 1.76 lbs. and the 24-120 is 1.56 lbs. So a difference of .2 lbs. And no, I will not break that down in ounces for you also. But, if weight is that big of deal for you, then your not really comparing the lenses, IMHO.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

billnikon wrote:

I could say that is easy to look up for yourself, but, I won't cause I am trying to be nice. The 28-300 is 1.76 lbs. and the 24-120 is 1.56 lbs. So a difference of .2 lbs. And no, I will not break that down in ounces for you also. But, if weight is that big of deal for you, then your not really comparing the lenses, IMHO.

Sorry you feel that way. I see nothing wrong in comparing the different components of lenses, be it quality of the optics, construction, size, weight, etc.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

The Villages wrote:

Sorry you feel that way. I see nothing wrong in comparing the different components of lenses, be it quality of the optics, construction, size, weight, etc.

I believe that all Bill was saying is that weight factors can easily be checked and compared.

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

The Villages wrote:

Saw today's posts about the 24-120mm lens which got good ratings from the group.

For those that might have been trying to possibly decide between that lens and the 28-300mm, what were the deciding factors for your final choice?

Obviously the 28-300mm has the 180mm added reach, but was more interested in what was felt to be the quality of the lenses in producing acceptable pictures.

As always, thanking you in advance for your feedback.

The 28-300 is a dreadful lens on a full frame camera, though it is popular with those that have a less critical eye and are willing to trade off convenience against image quality. On a crop camera is isn't bad - the center performance is ok. The 24-120 is better in all regards over the 28-300.

BTW, the focus breathing on the 28-300 is so bad, that at it's nearest focusing distance it only provides the field of view of a 150mm lens when it is set to 300mm. I have personally tried 3 different copies of this lens - 1 from Nikon's loaner program, and 2 borrowed from friends. They were all awful. I can't tell you how badly I wished it wasn't true. But using other considerably sharper lenses (most lenses are sharper), there was no way I could justify the cost of that lens against the fact that it would not get that much use due to it's mediocre image quality.

capmike Loc: New Bern, NC

I bought the 28 - 300 to go with my new D 750 2+ years ago. Initially happy, but in retrospect, that was due to the D 750 vs the D 300s I was upgrading from. It didn’t take me long to realize it was impossible for me to get a really sharp photo with that lens, in addition to the lens creep. I’m shooting wildlife, and if it isn’t absolutely a crisp photo, I’m not happy. I bought the 300 PF lens with a 1.4 tele, and am incredibly impressed and overwhelmingly satisfied with the results. For my walk around lens, I sold the 28 -300 and got the 24 - 120. There is no comparison in the IQ between these two lens. It depends on what level of IQ you are satisfied with. The 28 - 300 is fine for someone who takes snapshots, but if you want a real photograph, it is not your solution.

alphonso49uk

The 28-300 always manages to stir up controversy. Ive had both these lenses on a D750 and found them both to be excellent although if I had to choose Id probably say that the 24-120 gave the most consistent results.That said I now have a different 28-300 on my D810 (shock, horror)and find it to be tack sharp and IQ to be excellent. The conclusion is probably that you may be more likely to get a bad copy with the 28-300 than the 24- 120 but that the likelyhood of that happening is not clear.
Experience has taught me not to read too much into professional pixel peeping reviews and instead to look at what a lens is capable of on flickr first and take it from there

Booker

Am I the only one that doesn't mind a tad of sharpening in post processing? My 28-300 is a great all around lens, especially if travel allows a minimum of equipment. I've used it for a few years now and never had a sharpness problem. Oh, and for wildlife, it would seem to me that a 400mm to 600mm lens would be a much better bet.

alphonso49uk

No youre not the only one....most photography forums regard sharpening in post process to be a kind of shame which shouldnt be admitted to. Im assuming they think you cant be a real photographer if you resort to cheating?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

When considering the quality for a new lens purchase, I first factor in my quality as a photographer. Just a thought.

Booker

alphonso49uk wrote:

No youre not the only one....most photography forums regard sharpening in post process to be a kind of shame which shouldnt be admitted to. Im assuming they think you cant be a real photographer if you resort to cheating?

Every expert I read recommends SOME minor sharpening after the fact. I guess there is a snob factor working here sometimes!