Serendipity: I shot this with a 28-300mm lens at 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1250 sec, ISO 200. I'm very impressed with this lens's capabilities as a close-up lens at 300mm, although I have read...

bdo Loc: Colorado

I shot this with a 28-300mm lens at 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1250 sec, ISO 200.

I'm very impressed with this lens's capabilities as a close-up lens at 300mm, although I have read that the actual focal length under these conditions is closer to 130mm.

As is often the case, I did not see the ant until I opened the image in PSE 10.

I have no idea what the wildflower is. I took the photo while participating in an REI outdoor photography class, in Chautauqua Park.

EarthArts Loc: Schenectady,NY

Nice image. I believe your flower is a Spring Beauty.

Robbie7 Loc: Northampton. England

bdo wrote:

I shot this with a 28-300mm lens at 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1250 sec, ISO 200.

I'm very impressed with this lens's capabilities as a close-up lens at 300mm, although I have read that the actual focal length under these conditions is closer to 130mm.

As is often the case, I did not see the ant until I opened the image in PSE 10.

I have no idea what the wildflower is. I took the photo while participating in an REI outdoor photography class, in Chautauqua Park.

Hi bdo :) Nice shot and cropped well, but at this time of the morning my tired old brain hasn't woken up, so, Why is the focal length closer to 130mm? ..I often wonder if these little insects appear from between leaves while we are concentrating on framing and shooting etc. and were not there at first glance..tfp :thumbup:

bdo Loc: Colorado

Robbie7 wrote:

Hi bdo :) Nice shot and cropped well, but at this time of the morning my tired old brain hasn't woken up, so, Why is the focal length closer to 130mm? ..I often wonder if these little insects appear from between leaves while we are concentrating on framing and shooting etc. and were not there at first glance..tfp :thumbup:

I'm just remembering something from a review I read of the lens. Here is Ken Rockwell:

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

...Focal Lengths, effective performance top

The effective maximum focal length shortens at distances closer than infinity in order to allow this lens to focus as close as it does. For instance, at ten feet, it's really only a 28-200mm lens.

For distant shots where you really need it (meaning at infinity, not at 20 feet or 6 meters), it really is 300mm.

Conventional 300mm lenses can't actually focus any closer than 1.2 meters (4x the focal length); it's physically impossible. Nikon's real 300mm lenses only focus to 2.2 meters.

In order to allow this lens focus to a foot and a half, if you're zoomed out to 300mm, it doesn't tell you, but it shortens its effective focal length as focuses more closely. The 18-200mm VR and 70-200mm VR II use this trick, too.

This trick is brilliant because you get 300mm where you really need it at infinity, and you also get to focus ridiculously close without having to move any switches or move the zoom ring in the process, as you have to do with Nikon's older lenses like the 28-105mm AF-D.

...

So yes, at 1.5 feet, this 28-300mm is really only a 130mm lens. Tough.

Even though the effective focal length withers at close distances, the zoom ring remains at 300mm and the mechanically-encoded EXIF data continues to say 300mm.

Robbie7 Loc: Northampton. England

bdo wrote:

I'm just remembering something from a review I rea... (show quote)

Hi Sd :) Yes! that all makes sense, I've never owned a zoom lens, all of mine are prime, except for my Sigma 10-20 mm which I have hardly used, so I've never really had reason to read up on them..Thanks for posting this, I've learnt something new again today :thumbup: