I have both lenses. I use the 28-300 when I travel for its 'all in one' ability, but as others have said, it is both large and heavy, and it's not the sharpest lens in my bag by far. But it is far from what I'd call bad. Its kind of like a saying about tires -- "long lasting, great handling, cheap: you can only have two at any one time." The same is true of lenses. If this were as sharp as my recently acquired 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR (an amazing lens btw, especially when paired with my D5), then the 28-300 would no doubt be even heavier and more expensive.

Ultimately it comes down to what you want. If you want the sharpest lens possible, then this isn't the one for you (get the 70-200 I mentioned); but you'll lose reach on both ends, plus it's bigger (although it doesn't seem heavier). If you want convenience in an all around package, this is a good choice, but maybe the Tamron someone mentioned might be a better one.

If you are just looking to get into full frame photography, then maybe there are other completely different lenses you should consider, depending upon what you are shooting. I have a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED that is incredibly sharp, and is my go to lens for portrait or event photography. Its also about $600 cheaper then the newer VR version, and I've never felt that I was missing anything by not having image stabilization on this lens. The Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is about $700 cheaper than the 24-70 (it's not as fast), but would seem to be a good lens for a general purpose walk-around full frame lens. I don't own one, but it appears to be generally well reviewed. If your interests tend toward landscape photography, you might look for something even wider.

I realize I've digressed somewhat from your initial question about the 28-300, but as with most things, different tools are better (or worse) for different jobs. It all comes down to what you want to do, and of course, what do you want to pay.

It's an awful lens. It has horrible focus breathing, which at it's nearest focus distance when zoomed to 300mm it only provides a field of view equal to a 135mm lens. Corners and edges are typically pretty soft, lots of chromatic aberration, strong illumination loss from center to edges, and overall soft results beyond 150mm.

Even though I have personally tried three different copies of this lens, you shouldn't take my word for it - check out this review.

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

You would do better to get a 24-120 F4, and if you need something longer, get a 300mmF4 or a 150-600 Tamron G2.

Funny thing I was looking at security cams today thinking of updating one at least to HD but I dont want to spend the bucks on one just yet. Retired and too many other expenses coming up.

Here are some more of the fox last summer. First is mama fox and the raccoon having a standoff and discussion out at the trail cam. Then one of the kits trying to scare off the coon. The funny thing is after a bit of gesturing it is not uncommon for the young fox and raccoons here to close up and eat together.

This will be the last of the fox pics on your post, hope you didnt mind the add. The last shot is two of the kits. Who could not love those faces.