Is the 28-300mm good enough for the D800 series? Until now I would have agreed with everybody and said no....until I saw this photo. Scroll down a bit and the o.p. posted it again for...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Until now I would have agreed with everybody and said no....until I saw this photo. Scroll down a bit and the o.p. posted it again for download. You will be amazed at what the combination of the D810 and the 28-300mm were able to do. Great subject, too. Mountains in Pategonia. Great photo.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-296692-1.html

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I'm surprised that I didn't get some responses to this. Since my 70-200mm only goes to 200mm....I'm going to go down to the lake with my 28-300mm and give it a test this week and see how sharp my photos come out. I'll use the tripod instead of handheld and see how much difference that makes.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

SteveR wrote:

I'm surprised that I didn't get some responses to this. Since my 70-200mm only goes to 200mm....I'm going to go down to the lake with my 28-300mm and give it a test this week and see how sharp my photos come out. I'll use the tripod instead of handheld and see how much difference that makes.

There are many who are not pleased with the 28-300. I have one that I use for travel, and for those days that I want to carry one lens and will not be able to gracefully change lenses. I am an amateur, and for the snapshots that I take, the 28-300 serves a purpose very well.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Kmgw9v wrote:

There are many who are not pleased with the 28-300. I have one that I use for travel, and for those days that I want to carry one lens and will not be able to gracefully change lenses. I am an amateur, and for the snapshots that I take, the 28-300 serves a purpose very well.

The 28-300 is such a handy range that i tried for almost 3 months to make it my everyday lens but finally gave up and replaced it with the sharper 70-200/2.8.
World of difference.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

oldtigger wrote:

The 28-300 is such a handy range that i tried for almost 3 months to make it my everyday lens but finally gave up and replaced it with the sharper 70-200/2.8.
World of difference.

OT....I was just surprised at the sharpness of the image taken with the 28-300mm in the link that I posted.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

SteveR wrote:

OT....I was just surprised at the sharpness of the image taken with the 28-300mm in the link that I posted.

I think most of us would be quite happy to find a $100,000 vet in our driveway but the fact remains that for only $1,000,000 more we could have had a Konig or Veyron and some real performance.
Will any of us measure up to the potential of modern cameras/lenses?
Very few, but thats no reason not to aspire to them.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

SteveR wrote:

Until now I would have agreed with everybody and said no....until I saw this photo. Scroll down a bit and the o.p. posted it again for download. You will be amazed at what the combination of the D810 and the 28-300mm were able to do. Great subject, too. Mountains in Pategonia. Great photo.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-296692-1.html

I have used the 28-300mm Nikon for over 6 years on a D90, D7000, D7100, Df, D600, D750, D800, D800E and D810. I have at no time ever been even slightly disappointed in its image quality. Its a fantastic lens for its cost. Is it as good as lenses costing 3 and 4 times as much? Likely not. But you would be VERY hard pressed to find fault with it. And the minor distortion issues it has are easily correctible in PP if needed.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

SteveR wrote:

Until now I would have agreed with everybody and said no....until I saw this photo. Scroll down a bit and the o.p. posted it again for download. You will be amazed at what the combination of the D810 and the 28-300mm were able to do. Great subject, too. Mountains in Pategonia. Great photo.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-296692-1.html

Yes, it is a great photo. However, I don't think you can judge the lens by it. Even a phone camera or disposable camera would have yielded an outstanding photo from this particular scene. Images that challenge a lenses' limitations are the real test, not images that any lens can handle quite nicely.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

rook2c4 wrote:

Yes, it is a great photo. However, I don't think you can judge the lens by it. Even a phone camera or disposable camera would have yielded an outstanding photo from this particular scene. Images that challenge a lenses' limitations are the real test, not images that any lens can handle quite nicely.

Download the photo and then magnify the mountains. The detail is excellent. Let me know if you think a cell phone could do the same after that.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

rook2c4 wrote:

Even a phone camera or disposable camera would have yielded an outstanding photo from this particular scene.

:shock: :thumbdown:

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

SteveR wrote:

Download the photo and then magnify the mountains. The detail is excellent. Let me know if you think a cell phone could do the same after that.

In other words, you need to zoom in deep to see the difference. Or print fairly large, and hold a magnifying glass up close to the print.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

oldtigger wrote:

The 28-300 is such a handy range that i tried for almost 3 months to make it my everyday lens but finally gave up and replaced it with the sharper 70-200/2.8.
World of difference.

I own the 70-200 2.8 too--but I don't want to carry it and a 24-70 2.8 around Disney World all day. I don't use the 28-300 that often, but it does have its place.

MarkD Loc: NYC

Kmgw9v wrote:

I own the 70-200 2.8 too--but I don't want to carry it and a 24-70 2.8 around Disney World all day. I don't use the 28-300 that often, but it does have its place.

I just read Jay Maisel's book, "Light, Gesture, & Color" and he says that he often uses a Nikon 28-300.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

SteveR wrote:

Until now I would have agreed with everybody and said no....until I saw this photo. Scroll down a bit and the o.p. posted it again for download. You will be amazed at what the combination of the D810 and the 28-300mm were able to do. Great subject, too. Mountains in Pategonia. Great photo.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-296692-1.html

No. And anyone at Nikon will tell you that there are better options for getting the best out of the 800 series.

This lists the lenses that Nikon suggests will produce the best images with the 800 series - and the 28-300 is not one of them.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

My experience with the superzoom was I gave it three chances - I borrowed an early copy from a friend, I borrowed a later copy from another friend, then I borrowed one through the NPS program. They were all consistently unacceptable, especially beyong 150mm.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

SteveR wrote:

Until now I would have agreed with everybody and said no....until I saw this photo. Scroll down a bit and the o.p. posted it again for download. You will be amazed at what the combination of the D810 and the 28-300mm were able to do. Great subject, too. Mountains in Pategonia. Great photo.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-296692-1.html

That's a fine lens for a reasonable price. I've been using it for a couple of years on a D7100 and D610.