Nikon 28-300mm Lens (Page 2): :sm24:...

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

therwol wrote:

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

couch coyote wrote:

I have it on my d7500 and it's my main lens. I us... (show quote)

Guess I have to weigh whether 10% tele shots and 90% wide is worth sacrificing the sharpness of my 18-35mm or 24-85mm in order to carry a do-all lens. The more I digest the feedback from everyone, I am beginning to think maybe I should buy a compact zoom for the long shots just so I won't feel like I missed anything and use my 24-85mm for the rest.

Any ideas for a good compact with tele equivalent up to maybe 600mm?

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

dmeyer wrote:

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?

There are a couple of questions about this particu... (show quote)

You might want to take a look at Ken Rockwell's review for this lens. Many here, including myself, think he can be a bit of a blowhard at times, but he absolutely loves this lens.

His review contains a lot of sample images that look pretty darn good:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

User ID

flip1948 wrote:

You might want to take a look at Ken Rockwell's review for this lens. Many here, including myself, think he can be a bit of a blowhard at times, but he absolutely loves this lens.

His review contains a lot of sample images that look pretty darn good:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

The problem with KR’s reviews is that he is staunchly realistic. His site is far less Shakespearian than UHH, reflecting its obvious difference in purpose.

Concerning “gear critique” I can identify closely with KR. OTOH, I put zero stock in the “expert critical judgement” of anyone here on UHH. Again there’s that distinct difference in purpose.

Reporting whether I love, tolerate, or despise my own 28-300 will not predict anyone else’s outcomes with it. Not only are users all different but considering the complexity of the device selling for under $1,000, I expect there’s some variation from lens to lens.

Finally there’s the lens distribution gods and their sense of justice. They see that too many Hogsters prefer pontificating about optics to really using them, so they assure that only the very worst examples go to the most pompous Hogsters.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Z6 and 24-200.

Check the weights on your alternatives: camera plus lens.

PS: I had 28-300 with my D800. It was OK for situations where the zoom was most important. It was the first lens I sold when moving towards Zs. Combined weight was substantial.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

dmeyer wrote:

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.) ...
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?

Convenience. That is the key word here, Diane. What is it worth to you.

I have this lens. I use it. I like the images I get. Of course, I don't shoot a lot of buildings with straight walls. I shoot trees and fields, lakes and clouds, plus the occasional wild animal. Anymore, I shoot "hand-held" because I am basically too lazy to use a 'pod most of the time. Unless you are a persnickety "Pixel Peeper", this lens does its job "quite well." All so called "Super Zooms" are not that easy to design and manufacture and IQ suffers over the range of the zoom (you know this ... nothing new here).

For me as a Landscape Guy, I find that I very rarely shoot beyond 200mm. Living on the East Coast, not many elk or buffalo here. So more often I use a Nikkor 28-200mm G ( https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm ). Same caveats as with any Super Zoom but a whole lot smaller and lighter. Pre-owned versions are still around "for a song."

Good luck with your decision. If this has been of any help, I'm glad.

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

dmeyer wrote:

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?

There are a couple of questions about this particu... (show quote)

Interesting question. For landscapes I love wide angle to medium focal lengths. My favorite landscape lenses are my Nikon 16-35 f4 and your 24-120 f4.
The first image below is of a water fall in Vermont taken with the 16-35, the second was taken in Iceland recently with the 24-120. In fact, I broke my own law of travel when in Iceland and used the D850 and 24-120 and 500 PF lenses. I also took my trusty Sony HX99 and for hot tubes my Nikon AW130.
I think you already have one of the ideal travel and landscape lenses in your 24-120. I rarely go above 120 for landscapes.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I have this lens but not entirely happy with it. It's a versatile "walk around" lens but it's also a bit soft at the 300 end. This is one lens I have somewhat buyers remorse with. Best to back off to 200-250. If you need to shoot around the 300 mark better choices would be one of the Nikkor 75-300 variants (I have the AF-P FX version very good lens), the Tamron 18-400 or a 300 prime. For general walk around the 18-400 and many others are better choices.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The 28-300mm is my always-on lens. I use longer or wider lenses occasionally, but the 28-300mm could be my only lens. I'm aware that it doesn't rate as high as some other lenses in tests, but in my tests - photography - it does fine.

bgroome

dmeyer wrote:

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?

There are a couple of questions about this particu... (show quote)

I use the 28-300mm as my "walk around"/travel lens on both by D500 and D5600. I don't see any barrel creep while shooting. It will creep in your bag or hanging off your shoulder for extended periods of time if you do not engange the very well designed lock.

ggttc Loc: TN

Off subject a little...but... I carry a 28-80 nikon, weighs about the same as a bag of potato chips and fits in your pocket (see Ken Rockwell review. $60.) and a Tamron 100-400...inexpensive and sharp

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Diane, your questions and requirements are exactly what I went through before my trip to Hawaii. I had the D810. I wanted to only take 2 lenses; as I already had the 16-35 and 70-200 f/4, and 28-70 f/2.8. I read everything..everywhere about the 28-300. But, I stayed on point to make a decision. Z's were not out yet.
Then I asked a friend, who is a Pro, who has all of Nikon's latest and greatest lenses and cameras. He told me that he bought the 28-300 for his wife to use and found it to be more than adequate. In fact he told me that when you understand the limitations of any lens; you will be better prepared to use it to it's/your advantage. Buy it he told me and try our's if you like. I did. I purchased it. I brought my 16-35 f/4 with it to Hawaii and never looked back. Not one regret. My 'quality of life' when traveling and using this combination was key.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have and use that lens on all of my digitals. It's quite good, in fact, superb. I realize that this is contrary to several members, some of whom I respect highly. However, I'm quite pleased with the results when using this lens. I'll let the photographs speak for the quality.
--Bob

dmeyer wrote:

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?

There are a couple of questions about this particu... (show quote)

(Download)

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

flip1948 wrote:

You might want to take a look at Ken Rockwell's review for this lens. Many here, including myself, think he can be a bit of a blowhard at times, but he absolutely loves this lens.

His review contains a lot of sample images that look pretty darn good:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

I would agree that the sample images look very good. Interestingly, I also opened a tab for KR's review on the Tamron 18-400mm (which I had considered as a second carry for my D5300). In both reviews I found a close-up image of Half Dome. Then I toggled between the two images comparing details and camera settings. That was probably the most revealing example of the differences between DX and FX. Now I can lay to rest any thought of getting the DX 18-400mm as a second carry on the D5300. I would be more than happy with the FX 28-300mm for most situations, so long as it is very sharp in the wide to normal range where I do most of my shooting.
(See you're a '48-er too!

)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

chrisg-optical wrote:

I have this lens but not entirely happy with it. It's a versatile "walk around" lens but it's also a bit soft at the 300 end. This is one lens I have somewhat buyers remorse with. Best to back off to 200-250. If you need to shoot around the 300 mark better choices would be one of the Nikkor 75-300 variants (I have the AF-P FX version very good lens), the Tamron 18-400 or a 300 prime. For general walk around the 18-400 and many others are better choices.

Except the 18-400 is a DX lens and he’s looking for FX.