dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

There are a couple of questions about this particular lens that I would appreciate some feedback on from my fellow hoggers. (If you check my Flickr site, you'll see that I am into landscapes and nature.)

I'll start with some background first. I used Nikon's 18-200mm DX lens on my D5xxx series cameras for 10 years. A few years back I moved up to full frame but kept one D5xxx body with the 18-200mm lens for reach with acceptable IQ. The D750 full frame has had either the 18-35mm or 24-85mm lens on it for the incredibly light combined weight and very good IQ. Most of my photography is compressed into a couple of travel adventures each year. But those trips meant carrying two camera/lens combos plus tripod and accessories...oh yeah, and my ultra-wide prime for Milky Way/starry skies.

Fast forward three years since my last trip. Age is getting the best of me and I am not so anxious to lug that much gear around through airports and in and out of rental cars. But I am not willing to go backwards on IQ by stepping down to smaller sensor cameras. That is why I have taken a new look at possibly buying the Nikon 28-300mm lens. I do have a 24-120mm f/4 lens but it really doesn't have that much more reach than the 24-85mm and is a good bit heavier in the trade-off.

I had always seen where the 28-300mm had a pretty low score when doing some research with DXOMark lens rankings. Then it struck me that maybe what is a low score for a full frame lens would be impressive when compared to a comparable combo in crop sensor. So, I ran a comparison between a D750 matched with the 28-300mm VR lens against the D5300 matched with the 18-200mm VRII lens (which gets me to the 300mm full-frame equivalent). Going into Comparisons and viewing the Measurements/Sharpness/Field Map, the lowly 28-300mm combo clearly outperformed the 18-200mm combo. Or put another way, what looks weak on the FF28-300mm scores far outshines the DX18-200mm across the full range of focal lengths and apertures. But I had often read here on UHH not to put too much stock in test scores on paper. So, that is why I am asking for experiences from real world users. Also, does the 28-300mm suffer much barrel creep like the 18-200mm does? I realize these all-purpose zoom lenses do have issues with distortion, but I can deal with that after the fact in Lightroom.

If I limit my bag to one camera body, an all-purpose lens, plus my feather light prime, I think I might make it a week and a half on the road and come home standing upright, lol. What do you think?

Quixdraw Loc: x

Have the 28-300, got it for travel. Not bad, not good. Either the 24-85 or 24-120 are sharper. Wasn't using it, lent it long term to a family member who is just getting into full frame digital. I think my old 75-300 is sharper than the 28-300. There are going to be compromises with any broad range zoom. I still travel with 2 Nikons, 4 lenses, etc. understand the issues you mentioned. Don't even think about the 80-400, took that on a trip to try to get a particular bird, it was just like a ball and chain! Good luck, hope you find a solution!

EddieE Loc: Dallas, TX

I use my 28-300 on my D750 most of the time and have been happy with the results. I am rarely using at 300, but it's nice to have it when needed. I just purchased a Sigma 150-600, so need to get comfortable using it for wildlife shots. Today's software choices can sharpen most shots that are just a tiny bit off. I'm not saying the 28-300 is the best lens ever, but it doesn't suck either.

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

Have it, love it !! I sold all my nikon digital stuff but have a nikon f100 slr I kept the 28-300 to use on it !! I moved to fujifilm system for digital.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Consider your D750 with your 24-85mm and the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR Nikkor...
The 28-300mm while versatile is no match for the aforementioned combo...

I still shoot the 28-300mm under hazardous conditions... See below..
Consider it pretty much a "trasher" meaning while it always gets the shot and I'm not stressing over losing it...

The AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E focuses so fast I'm sometimes wondering if the AF is actually working... lol
.

AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikkor

(Download)

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

I looked at three different copies - one that was borrowed from a friend, and the other two that were loaners from Nikon. They were all consistently and incredibly mediocre. I would not buy it. It's like a small pebble in your shoe - it's small, and not a big deal but somehow it gains importance over time. Nothing worse than spending a large chunk of cash that leaves you with regrets.

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff

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

My first DSLR was a D200 with an 18-200. I thought it was a great lens until I started using other lenses. It did produce reasonable photos and had a convenient range. The only problem I had with it was focal length creep. It would extend with gravity when the lens was hanging downward (which it did frequently). I solved the creep problem by putting a rubber band around the lens to inhibit accidental rotation.

Eventually I went FX. After a while I got a 28-300. Basically the same range as the 18-200 so the convenience factor was still there. Comparisons to other lenses tended to devalue the 28-300 but in a comparison between pix with the 18-200/DX and the 28-300/FX, the 28-300 came out better in my opinion.

I use it for casual trips basically because of the convenience. As far as sharpness, it doesn't match the 14-24-70-200 but for casual pix it's just fine. Depends on how anal you are about sharpness. IMHO sharpness is not essential for most photos. The content is more important, particularly for family shots.

I would guess that the 28-300 accounts for maybe 10-15% of my lens use.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

Maybe wildlife just isn't going to be an option for me, even though I like environmental compositions with a medium long lens over portraits. I have only once ever had the patience and reflexes to do birds, and that was a family of Ospreys. Had the DX 18-200mm with me on that trip and had to do some serious cropping afterwards. Would like to achieve better than that if I change lenses.

As you mentioned, I already have two sharper lenses (plus the 18-35mm) to handle all the landscapes. Just would have liked to get down to one combo that could do it all. And, as a matter of fact, I did take take a look at the 80-400mm and knew I would never be able to lug that 3.5 lbs. around! All said, my landscapes are the most important for me.

(Download)

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

It's funny how what looks great to you at one level of technology begins to disappoint when new technology ups the game. I thought the D5300/18-200mm was pretty nice until I got my D750 and put the 18-35mm and 24-85mm on it. Now my expectations are higher. Maybe I should rent a 28-300mm and see how it shakes out. Don't you love your D750, though? IMO, for the carry weight and controls, it can't be beat.

therwol Loc: USA

This lens comes up over and over on this forum. There are people who like it and people who hate it. When I distill it all down, it comes across as a mediocre lens that's very convenient to use. Mediocre is in the eyes of the beholder. I agree with your later post. You should rent one and see if it works for you.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

That's encouraging! Wonder if film brings out better characteristics in a lens than digital does. Interestingly, my first digitals were Fuji Finepix bridge cameras. Still have the S5200 and recently played with at a garden--it takes JPEG's with such beautiful color renderings. But now I'm all Nikon.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

I had a 70-300mm G at one time but invariably would have the wrong camera/lens on me when I'd have to hike to a photo op. (Actually, I had the 70-300mm on the D5300 for the extra reach.) Nowadays I can't manage carrying a bag of lenses or a second camera/lens combo. That's why I was wishing for a versatile do-all travel lens worthy of the D750. Looks like the search for a solution is still on.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

Well said, Gene. I agree with that analogy because it describes exactly what motivates me to move up the ladder with equipment. Sounds like the 28-300mm on my D750 is going to equate with the 18-200mm mounted on the D5300 after all, despite the pretty green squares on the Field Map in DXOMark.

couch coyote Loc: northern Illinois

I have it on my d7500 and it's my main lens. I use it probably 98% of the time. I got it for the large range and want to say I love it - I really really want to say that - but I can't quite. Right now I'm shooting fox kits in low light, and cropping the shots, and it just isn't sharp enough to suit me.

But that's more extreme than the usual landscape. And the ease of traveling with just one relatively light lens is considerable. Only you can judge which is most important. For travel I'd say go for it. I haven't been disappointed with my landscape shots.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

Been there, done that with the 18-200mm. In fact, the rubber band that the grocery puts around broccoli makes the perfect width and tension for the lens barrel!

I appreciate your candid input. It is good food for thought. That said, 'casual' and 'okay' aren't really what I am after when I spend $$$ on the trips and only have one opportunity to capture the scene before moving on. Guess I am fairly anal. But also, I do a fair amount of cropping once I am home and start processing and hate fuzzy detail. Really hate to slide backwards with IQ after going full-frame.