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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Still own and use an 18-200 in DX.

In FX, it's the newer 24-120 street sweeper for my daily carry, plus a 700-200 f/4 for travel.

I don't shoot much fast lens stuff these days, even though I do still have a 70-200 f/2.8 in my closet, because the high ISO performance of these modern cameras is just so good, one stop is really just for the added bokeh.

Since switching from D600s, I've settled on D850s as my work DSLRs and really only these three zooms have kept up though the generations, in terms of IQ, for me.

Yes, they're heavy, but every day I see the shots from *my copies of* the street sweeper and the slower 70-200, I give thanks to the Gods of Photography and the results prove to me once again that carrying them is definitely worth the effort.

Of course, there's always my iPhone for those other days!