srherrmann Loc: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

Are you going to sell the 28-300?

Jim Bob

It is indeed an extraordinary lens in every way. However, I do believe it is over priced at almost $2800.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

A cheap lens it isn't, but it is an extraordinary one. It is truly my most used lens and I use it for pretty much everything I shoot, or at least it is along in my bag. It is lightning fast in focusing, at least when coupled with a D5, D500 or D850 (all have the latest, dedicated processor AF system). Believe it, or not, they have shaved some weight off with the FL. It doesn't have the focus breathing issue of its predecessor and, finally, they have not only replaced the focus lock buttons of the VR I, but have made them dual functioning. The newest version is sharp as a tack. I'd place it my top 5 Nikor lenses. It's not cheap, but I'd have gladly paid more to get what I needed -- this particular lens is that important to my work. Sorry to sound like a Nikon salesman, but this is one superior lens that is useful for quite a lot of work. (I would not say any of that about the previous version.) I know, I rant!

tredway

Thank you all ! I appreciate it.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Absolutely. Get the 70-200 f/2.8 FL lens – it's awesome.

Jim Bob

I understand. It is indeed and amazing lens. I have nothing but praise for the image and build quality. But priced for the consumer enthusiast it is not. Took me six months to pay for that baby. But I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's that good and I'm not known for being effusive about many products.

tralain

I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, the G2 and I'm quite happy with it. I've used longer zooms as well but these more professional grade lenses can make a difference in some areas, especially sharpness at the long end of the zoom and in lower light situations. Additionally, the Tamron is a decent and fast focusing lens, unlike the Tamron it replaces, which was beautiful optically but horrible at focus. The Nikon and Canon equivalent lenses do focus a bit faster, but don't need to pay that much more for the additional speed. The Tamron is plenty fast for me.

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

I love my 70-200, very sharp. But you might also consider Sigma and/or Tamron. They make a very sharp lens too and less money. You just have to decide how much you are willing to spend. I am usually willing to spend the extra money for the brand name. But I do have a Sigma 150 2.8 macro that I love too.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I, too, was underwhelmed with my 28-300 on either my D7100 or D750. I questioned whether or not it needed focus adjustments, but both local camera store and local repair shop said no. I reconciled myself to the fact that its strength is its versatility, not necessarily performance. Of equal or greater concern to me was low light performance. The variable aperture just wasn't giving me what I wanted in low light over 105mm, especially on the D7100, which does not handle high ISO as well as the D750.
The difference between the 28-300 and the 70-200 f2.8 FL is astounding. Most impressive is the focus speed. I did not realize how (comparatively) sluggish the 28-300 is. Mind you, it's focusing over a much wider range. But the 70-200 is almost instantaneous. And the 2 extra stops at the long end of the zoom range is helpful.
You do give up the 28-70 portion of your range, so it's not what I would consider a 'walk around' lens. If I leave the house with nothing particular in mind, I'll still pop the 28-300 on for the sake of versatility. And in spite of the effective focal length limitations of the 28-300 in short distance use*, it does have an extra 100mm which- at distance of 100 yards or more- is closer to actual focal length.
Whether the 70-200 is worth the price tag only you can decide for yourself, but I look forward to using it often in the future.

*Do some further research if you do a lot of close-up work re: effective focal range.