The Nikon 28-300mm FX lens
Jan 30, 2017 08:53:48 #
Though I know have all FX bodies and lenses, I did once shoot DX and had the 18-200 DX equivelent of the 28-300. Was a nice lens and used it quite a bit on my D200 and then D300. When I stepped up to FX a few years ago, I stumbled upon a 28-300 on craigslist. Was mint in the box for $650.00. Used it quite a bit but found that it was just too heavy for me. Sold it back on craigslist nine months later for $50.00 more than I paid for it (great pictures and a detailed description allow this).
For the next couple years I stuck with my (lightweight) 70-300VR and (heavyweight) 70-200 for telephoto. Then ran into a 24-120 F4 VR on craigslist. Although it is only three ounces lighter than the 28-300, it seems much lighter than that to me. This is the lens I take if I only take one. If I only take two, I add the 50mm F1.4.
I would not rent the 28-200 lens unless you can get it cheap for a week.
For the next couple years I stuck with my (lightweight) 70-300VR and (heavyweight) 70-200 for telephoto. Then ran into a 24-120 F4 VR on craigslist. Although it is only three ounces lighter than the 28-300, it seems much lighter than that to me. This is the lens I take if I only take one. If I only take two, I add the 50mm F1.4.
I would not rent the 28-200 lens unless you can get it cheap for a week.
Jan 30, 2017 09:00:39 #
jerryc41 wrote:
There's no such thing as "best image quality." A $2,000 lens does not guarantee top quality images any more than a $500 lens guarantees mediocrity. "Best" and "mediocrity" are subjective terms. It's like "fast" when talking about cars. Would you pay $1 million for the fastest car, rather than a fraction of that for one that can go 200 mph? Unless you have your own racetrack, that kind of speed guarantees nothing more than bragging rights.
I hate this relativist crap. There is such a thing as best image quality.
Jan 30, 2017 09:00:50 #
Which lenses make up the Holy Trinity, and what three f/f1.4 lenses do you refer to?
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Jan 30, 2017 09:01:48 #
baseball dad wrote:
I simply recognize that I do not have the skills at this time to be 2 S.D. above the mean. Buying better (read: more expensive) glass will not push me out there either.
I would hardly put the Nikon 28-300 in the "mediocrity" bin.
I would hardly put the Nikon 28-300 in the "mediocrity" bin.
Of course not.
Jan 30, 2017 09:14:08 #
Julian wrote:
I have read plenty about the 28-300mm zoom lens and most reports indicate an excessive amount of distortion and extreme vignetting; practically speaking, is the lens really worth having. According to some, it is the ideal traveling lens because you don't have to carry anything else: it replaces most of your lenses. Your comments and opinions will be appreciated.
I love mine! Have used for everything from events to birding. Have 70-200 with TC 2.0 now so won't be using it much for birding anymore but absolutely for a walk around camera. Only thing I don't like about it is that I can't work the telephoto mechanism if the hood is still on in the backwards storing position. In other words, I have to take the time to take that off if I'm just grabbing for a hawk on side of road, for example. It does have vignetting at the short end IF the hood is on. So I guess there are two things I don't like. Images are great though.
Jan 30, 2017 09:14:52 #
There is no single lens that will do everything. All everyone wants to do is play zoom. They have no understanding of optics or it relaltion to photography.
Jan 30, 2017 09:30:07 #
oldschool wrote:
I just bought a very lightly used one for travel. ... (show quote)
Me too!! I always come here and search for comments about particular things I'm thinking of buying and after purchasing my refurbished D750 I was wondering about what first FX lens I should get and the response here for the 28-300 was overwhelmingly positive. Very interesting. I, for one, am glad I made the plunge. I got mine used on Adorama or B&H. Can't remember which at the moment.
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Jan 30, 2017 09:30:32 #
cthahn wrote:
There is no single lens that will do everything. All everyone wants to do is play zoom. They have no understanding of optics or it relaltion to photography.
That may be a truism. However, some zoom lenses are exceptional (for example, the new Nikon 70-200 E FL f 2.8) and others are mediocre to good. Others are simply a waste of money.
Jan 30, 2017 09:38:33 #
Alpix wrote:
If you already have the 70-200mm f4. the extra reach I would say falls into the 'softer' region of the 28-300mm.
28-300mm is a big ask for a lens IMHO. If you are after long reach, have you considered Sigma 150-600mm?
Much bigger and heavier of course, but pretty sharp I can confirm. It seems to folllow on well from the 70-200mm 2.8 without the expense and weight of the 500 or 600mm f4.
Good luck.
28-300mm is a big ask for a lens IMHO. If you are after long reach, have you considered Sigma 150-600mm?
Much bigger and heavier of course, but pretty sharp I can confirm. It seems to folllow on well from the 70-200mm 2.8 without the expense and weight of the 500 or 600mm f4.
Good luck.
Thank you.
Jan 30, 2017 09:40:00 #
donnahde wrote:
I love mine! Have used for everything from events... (show quote)
Thanks for your input.
Jan 30, 2017 09:42:02 #
Billynikon
Loc: Atlanta
I carry it on my DF and MY 810 most of the time and carry a 50 !.4 and a 105 !.8 as backup when I want them and it has worked very well all over the is country and in Paris, Florence and Naples.
Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Jan 30, 2017 09:42:54 #
Billynikon wrote:
I carry it on my DF and MY 810 most of the time and carry a 50 !.4 and a 105 !.8 as backup when I want them and it has worked very well all over the is country and in Paris, Florence and Naples.
Good to know. Thanks.
Jan 30, 2017 10:02:57 #
Perhaps I was fortunate in the lens I got. I've been able to crop quite a bit from photos taken with my 28-300mm. I took a series of family photos a few years ago using it and my D7000. From the full family shot I was able to crop out quite a nice photo of my son who was standing in the rear. The crop was so clear that it even showed the scar on his forehead quite distinctly. I just recently went back to that series of photos and found another crop that I'm going to print that will include my son and his two sisters. On a dx camera it works wonders at birthday parties, etc., where "reach" is a benefit. I also use it on my D800, although I have also purchased the 24-70 and 70-200. If you could get a lens as sharp as mine, I'd say go for it.
Jan 30, 2017 10:11:02 #
SteveR wrote:
Perhaps I was fortunate in the lens I got. I've b... (show quote)
Thank you. I will have the opportunity to try out a used unit for sale.
Jan 30, 2017 10:18:24 #
Your question is very timely for me. I just bought a D500 with a 16-80mm zoom and have been debating what to get for longer focal lengths. I would love the convenience of a 28-300, but hate to sacrifice image quality. I am also considering a 70-300, but don't know how much better it would be at longer focal lengths. Also, that brings it back to a 2 lens solution, eliminating some convenience. And then there's the choice of several different models of Nikons plus Tamron and Sigma. I'm also looking at the 80-400, but for over $2,000 the image quality would have to be great to justify the price. I'm a serious amateur, so it's not like I can make an economic case for a pro lens to support my sales.
My local camera stores don't list many of the lens I'm considering on their web sites, so I don't know if they carry them in stock for me to try.
My local camera stores don't list many of the lens I'm considering on their web sites, so I don't know if they carry them in stock for me to try.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.