Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

No.

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

Can you find it on Nikon's recommended list of lenses for the D850?

That's all you need to know.

I participate in the NPS program. I have borrowed two from Nikon on different occasions for two weeks each time, and borrowed a friend's copy for a day of shooting. It was an underwhelming experience.

Here are some honest reviews done by people with a reputation for accurate, in-depth, reliable information

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/2

Exec Summary:

Pros: small, light, good VR, only $900.
Cons: poor image quality at edges and corners at all focal lengths, vignetting, "horrible" bokeh, severe focus breathing (at 300mm and minimum focus distance it is only 135mm), chromatic aberration, not very sharp, even in the center field at all focal lengths, etc etc etc.

Another review

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=2

In their verdict, the state "So, in the end its a matter of balancing whether the convenience factor of such a lens outweighs its shortcomings. For many it might, but anyone shooting both sensor sizes will probably be better off with the 18-200 VR II on his or her DX camera." They gave it a 1-1/2 to 2 star rating out of a possible 5.

Another review, a little harder to wrap your head around but by using their Perceptual Megapixel metric, which adds a qualitative component to the quantitative measurements.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-ED-VR-mounted-on-Nikon-D810__963

The P-Mpix metric shows, theoretically, the perceptual resolution of any lens compared to a perfect, flawless lens. On a D810, which is a 36.3mp camera, it earns a score of only 11 P-Mpix. Unfortunately, it does not measure the D850. This means that the image softness and other optical flaws will give you less than a third of the resolution possible on a 36 mp camera. In contrast, the Nikkor 105mm F1.4 on the samve body earns a 33 P-Mpix rating, or very close to the theoretical maximum (the perfect lens). Your 85mm F1.4 does quite a bit better, scoring 22 P-Mpix. (https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-Nikkor-85mm-f-1.4D-mounted-on-Nikon-D810__963)

This is the framework I used for my initial response.

So, if by your statement that you aren't using it for professional purposes implies that you are willing to accept poor, at best, image quality, and place a higher priority on convenience, this is the lens for you.

I hope this clarifies my position. I did read your initial post, and gave you my short assessment, and a rationale for why I don't own one, just trying to avoid posting a full page response. But I am sorry you missed my points, so in response to your posting, which I assume was directed at me, I gave you the full page, complete with personal experience with 3 different copies, though not on your camera, and several reviews that support my experience.

I hope you enjoy your 28-300 when you get it. I will never understand why someone buys something like a D850 and insists on pairing it with a mediocre lens. You have the best camera on the market, but putting mediocre lenses on it won't ever let you see its potential. With the 28-300, you would get an image quality similar to a 12 mp camera, like a D700 or D3S.

To avoid confusion next time you respond to a post, go to the post you are responding to, and at the bottom of that post, click on "Quote Reply" which will thread your response to that post.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I own D810 and D850, I shoot Raw and Jpg, Fx and Dx, and have a wide selection of Nikon glass including most that are mentioned previously. I consider my 28-300 the lens of last resort or use it in conditions where I suspect it might get damaged by weather because I am a big chicken with my good glass.

With that said, one of the best photos I have ever captured was with that lens in grueling conditions. I would say the success of that photo capture was caused by blind luck, light, composition, subject, and technical capability of camera and lens that had been calibrated together prior to the photo shoot at 13,000 foot elevation.

Did I wish I had my 70-300 2.8 YES! Did it make a huge difference not having it? No. The output still stands on its own.

I would rather lose the 28-300 for $850.00 than the 70-200 for $2700.00

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

First off, there are some who will advise against this lens. Personally, I have used this lens for the last 4-5 years on two digital cameras and have produced extremely good results. I've also seen very good results from others on UHH who use that lens. Although some are also stuck in the "fast glass" opinion, I personally find that changing the ISO to compensate for lack of "fast glass" works.

Now, it is possible that quality control on that particular lens is not the same as others. So, there may be a few bad ones out there. As I mentioned, I'd use mine for any photo project without hesitation.

My advice is to try one before you buy one. I wouldn't part with mine.
--Bob

greenwork Loc: Southwest Florida

The 28-300 is my glass of choice for walk around and family (not photo specific) travel. It’s not the sharpest but often sharp enough on my D810 and allows opportunities while still enjoying my family and the the non photographic experience. No one cares what camera or lens is used to capture an image if the photo moves them. Enjoy.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

I'm one of those guys using the really old 28-200 non VR. I admit I don't have a D850 (yet) and currently use it on my D750. The pictures with it are sharp and I love the ability to focus to 18" through ALL of the settings (28-200). That ability allows near macro shooting at the 200 setting and the 28 on an FX camera is also fairly wide. It's my go to field lens backed up with a Sigma 150-600 when birds are my chosen interest for the day. Take care & ...

ksmmike

I compared the Nikon 28-300 with the Tamron 28-300 and found them very similar and bought the Tamron for travel. I think it depends on what you really photograph while traveling. Do you shoot close up shots or more landscape or cityscape, maybe both?

When using it in Ireland and the UK, I used it a lot and also in the Grand Tetons. I then realized the majority of my images were from 28mm to 45mm range. I took the same lens along with the Nikon 20mm and a Voigtlander 40 and 58mm lenses on another trip to Europe and found I used the 28-300 for about 5 images the entire trip. Almost everything was shot with the 20 and 58mm primes.

I'm heading to the Tetons again this summer and the 28-300 will stay home. I'm taking the 16-35(or the 20mm), 58mm, 80-200 and a 300 prime. I realize the 28-300 along with the 16-35 would accomplish the same range, but the 28-300 doesn't touch the primes for better quality images. If you want to travel light and aren't going to print anything larger than 8x10, the 28-300 is fine. Its does a decent job between about 35-260mm, but the primes beat it easily under closer inspection and prints larger than 14 inches on either end.

That being said, I went on those trips with a Nikon D700 and later a D750. I now have a D850 which makes if even more critical to use good glass. I see an even larger difference now in lenses even against the D750 (which is a great camera).

Just my 2 cents from using different lenses on vacations.

Mike

FTn

See if you can rent or borrow one for a week or two. If you find as others have that this lens sucks on a D850 you can return it. If you are still stuck on looking for the Holy Grail does it all lens, buy the 28-300 and and a D300s with a 12.3 megapixel sensor. That is the camera body that this lens was designed to work with not the D850 with a 46 megapixel sensor.

- FTn

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I believe the latest iteration is in the form of TAMRON .....I am not sure about Nikon . You may po-poo Tamron, but they have an excellent and longest track record of larger ratio zooms. I use their latest 28-200 on Sony and very satisfied when needing the wide range - small and light too ! - but, I will qualify and say I am using it on a 24 MP full frame.
.
.

jerrypoller Loc: Huntington, NY

I used to take my f2.8 20-35; 35-70; and 80-200 with me on trips, but the weight in my camera bag used to crush my shoulders as I walked around. So I got a 28-300 and now only take that on trips - it's lightweight and sharp enough for travel pictures. Sometimes I also bring my 35-70 for indoor shots where flash isn't allowed. All told, I'm very happy with the simplicity of the 28-300 and really don't mind the slight loss of sharpness or the fast (but heavy) 2.8/80-200.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

I love mine which is hooked to the D750. It's on my camera 95% of the time, a great walk-around lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Kenmull

I have the 28-300 on my Nikon Z7 and love it and it is my go to lens when I travel. Prior to this I was always switching lenses and occasionally would miss a shot because I had the wrong lens on the camera or was afraid of dropping a lens as I switched. My results were alway good.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The Nikon 18-300 would be a good choice.

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

I think you have the list of attributes pretty well. I have been using a 28-300 for many years. My only complaint about it is that the hood tends to fall off if it gets bumped.