FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Actually, over time I have conditioned myself to always check the lock status of this lens. It has become "second nature" as the expression goes. In the beginning it was a pain.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I have a D750 that has a 28-300 on it nearly all the time. I use this set up for travel since this one lens will cover probably 90% of my shots (usually have a 16-35 with me as well). It is not the sharpest lens in the corners, but overall I have been satisfied with it. Sometimes convenience outweighs other considerations. I also have a D810 with a 24-120 lens on it. Informal, side by side comparisons of shots taken by both of these set ups shows little difference unless you crop. For travel, I would not give up this lens. Yeah, it's a little heavy, but it's much lighter and easy to carry than the bag full of lenses you would need to cover the same focsl range.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Acknowkedging credible criticisms of the 28-300, I want to add that my experience with the lens is positive. I don't use it everyday, but every time I attach it to my 800E, it occurs to me that I should use it more often. For "casual shooting" my 28-300 is acceptable for my non-professional needs.
Lens creep has not been a problem.
Rent one. Then you will decide.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I checked the site you suggested but found that it does not include some of the older lenses which in my opinion are real jewels. Lenses like the 17-35 2.8 and the 28-70 2.8 and others. However it seems quite complete for the newer lenses.

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

There is a backstory to this. I used an 18-200 Nikkor for years, on a D70, then a D200 and later a D300. For 10 mp sensors it was pretty good at the shorter end, and ok at the long end. It wasn't that heavy, OS was good, and a lens band kept the lens from extending when just carrying it around. I thought it was a brilliant solution to a walk-around, do everything lens. When I moved to a D700, I really wanted to love the 28-300. I borrowed a friend's lens and used it for a weekend. It was a frustrating experience. About a year later I borrowed one through NPS, figuring that what my friend had was a bad copy. This one was just as bad. Then six months later another friend go the lens - I borrowed it, shot with it for an afternoon, and discovered something interesting about Nikon's QA - on this lens at least, it was quite good - meaning that it was consistent with the other two copies I had tried. I ended up getting a 24-120 which is smaller, faster, and mostly sharper. It is always good in the center, and at the wider apertures it is quite good at F5.6, it's sweet spot. At 120mm, it is just ok, with the sweet spot at F8. Granted, the performance of the 24-120 at 120 was on par with the 28-300 at the same focal length and aperture, overall, Nikon missed the mark as far as FX is concerned with the 28-300. The lens is fine, actually pretty good, on a cropped sensor.

On the whole I have given up on a superzoom for full frame, the Tamron, Canon and Nikon lenses are all pretty bad. My opinion can best be summed up by this quote from Imaging Resource on the Tamron version.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/tamron/28-300mm-f3.5-6.3-xr-di-af/review/

"We've said it before, and we'll doubtless say it again in the future: If you've invested in a full-frame DSLR, it really doesn't make sense to subsequently try to economize by buying cheap lenses for it. If you only shoot snapshots with your own 5D or 1Ds Mark II, you might be happy with the Tamron 28-300mm on it (which does in that case provide truly wide-angle shots at its short end). But if you're just shooting snapshots, do you really need a full-frame DSLR?"

Kinda says it all.

I do not make a distinction between my personal images, and those I take for my clients - especially if it means I have to settle in quality and still spend $1000.

On the other hand, there is an oldie but a goodie - the Nikkor 28-105 F3.5-4.5. For about $120-$150 you can get a clean copy. It is sharp, does closeup to 1:2 in macro mode, is tiny and light - and it covers full frame nicely. No focus motor, no stabilization, but good to excellent image quality. There was some variation in quality from sample to sample, but if you buy wisely you can get a good one. One of the best values in this focal length range.

jcwood

2 more pesos, I have a new to me D750/28-300 combo. Previously I shot D90/18-200 and subsequently D90/18-300. I'm old school and did not like zoom lenses. I used prime on my FM all the way through my N6006 film cameras. As I travelled more and got older I was tempted by the great reviews of the 18-200 and put one on my D50. I never looked back. It was amazing what this lens would do. I bought the 18-300 and enjoyed it also but it was perhaps just slightly less sharp, still a great lens. I wanted to try FF thus the D750 and having good experience with the other DX zooms I bought the 28-300 (knowing the ratio brings me back to approximately 18-200 FOV in a DX format) and have enjoyed using it with no regrets. I am not a pro and not even in the same universe as pros. I have spent $3K plus for my new camera (actually a gift from my wife for being sober for 10yrs, I know, TMI but she's proud) and at this point I'm trying to see the improvement with the new rig. The D750 should much better in low light. It is but a lens with 3.5-5.6 aperture is not the way to find it, unless you use flash. I do use TTL flash a LOT and find the lens has excellent performance for that. Of course theres a limitation with distance so low light with "unflashable" subjects require a tripod. I'm OK with that. Overall its a great lens with great pics in the middle of the focal range, the ends not so much. Its a very useful lens for serious amateurs. The next step up for me would be the 2.8 zooms that cover the same FL. That more than doubles the expense for maybe a 10% improvement (I don't want to argue this, its a guesstimate). Pros would pay the $ because the pic has to be the money shot. Or many pros would go even more expensive with primes. The old saying "Speed costs money, how fast you want to go". The lens is very useful to those of us who enjoy our hobby.

Safecracker349 Loc: United Kingdom & Belize

I have a D810 and the 80 - 400 F4.5 to F5.6, when I travel with just 1 body and 1lens, this is it.
This lens also works well with the 1.4 x TC version III. I can get the whole thing into a Lowenpro
case with shoulder strap. I find it very versatile.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i agree, this is an exceptionally extreme zoom lens and the optical compromises do make themselves evident in enlarged prints.

slrankin

I used to use a 28-300 with my D800, but have moved on the a 24-120 f4 as my go to travel lens. The 28-300 was just too soft- the 24-120 is MUCH sharper, and with the massive size of the RAW files, it is possible to crop down and still have very nice results.

slrankin

I had a 28-300 and found the images to be too soft. I moved on to a 24-120 f4 which I use a a go-to lens for my d800. It is MUCH sharper than the 28-300, and with the massive RAW files of your d810 you will find the the ability to crop down should mitigate the shorter reach. Good luck.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

I also use my 28-300 on my D7200 much of the time. Once the AF Fine Tune was set this lens in really clear and sharp.

mharvey

When I was using g the D700, the 28-300 was the closest thing to a "perfect all-purpose" lens I had ever found.
Moving to the D800 and D810...oops!

The increased resolution instantly shows that the lens has limits.

I had to replace it with TWO lenses. 24-105 Sigma ART and 80-400 Nikkor.

Robeng Loc: California

As much as I like Gene51 and respect his opinion, I also disagree with him at times. I travel a lot for photography and I don't like carrying a lot of gear with me when I'm traveling. I have a shoot coming up in February for a travel magazine and a trip to China in April. In both situations one of the lenses I will be using is the Nikon 28mm-300mm on full frame bodies. When I travel, I don't like carrying a lot of gear. I keep it simple to 2 bodies and 3 lenses. With the exception of my 50mm f/1.4 lens I leave all my fast lenses at home. To heavy to carry.

I know the 28mm-300mm is not Nikon's best, but it works for me when I'm traveling. I also know for a fact Nat Geo photographers Joel Sartore, Joe McNally and many other pro photographers use this lens. I've attached a link for AAA's Via magazine with an image I shot using this lens. www.viamagazine.com/blog/west-beauty-via-readers-photos?ca=y.

So if you're looking for a lighter solution for a travel lens the 28mm-300mm works.

Rob

NikonCharlie Loc: Kansas USA

Here is my 28-300 true story. A friend works for a law firm, and as a bonus they all receive very nice gifts for Christmas. He ask for a Canon L lens, something like a 17 to 70 or just what I forget, wide to mid length. They gave him a 28-300 Nikon. He was upset to say the least. Offered it to me for $500, so I took it. On my D810 is was no pleasing, but I did play with it a few weeks. I use the 24-120 f4 as my travel lens, but 120 is far from the OP's 300 mm desire.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island