Advice on a lens please: Folks I need a light weight walk around Lens for my FX Nikon gear. What do you think of the 28-300? I had read a while back that there were some unhappy users...

Cibafan Loc: Virginia

Folks I need a light weight walk around Lens for my FX Nikon gear. What do you think of the 28-300? I had read a while back that there were some unhappy users, maybe not as sharp as it should be. Your input will be appreciated.
Thanks

Silverman Loc: Michigan

Cibafan wrote:

Folks I need a light weight walk around Lens for my FX Nikon gear. What do you think of the 28-300? I had read a while back that there were some unhappy users, maybe not as sharp as it should be. Your input will be appreciated.
Thanks

Review the Nikon 50mm1.8g lens too.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Silverman wrote:

Review the Nikon 50mm1.8g lens too.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Although I'm a Canon shooter, I've experienced that a lens with such a range as 28-300mm does give up sharpness. But it does make up a large gain with convenience. The photographer must decide which is more important when evaluating a lens purchase. Within the Canon realm of lenses the only lens that gives the best sharpest image is the Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM lens. But, you'll notice "L" that means it is above and beyond the normal quality lens, as for glass, weather sealing and focus. Of course money too. If you're looking for sharpness, try using 2 lenses to cover that range. I've had great success with using a 24-70mm lens and a 70-300mm lens.

B

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I have the Nikon 28-300.
It's surprisingly sharp for the convenient range. It's noticeably less sharp than the 24-70 and -70-200 but a lot less money. Personally, I really find the 24-120 very useful.
It's the lens I use more. Again, not quite as sharp as the 24-70 but for a lot of things I shoot, a great option.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Take a look at "Canonrumors.com" it seems Tamron will be marketing a 24-400mm lens in the near future. It will be in Canon, and Nikon mount.

B

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm a fan of the 28-300 focal length, I own both the Nikon 28-300 and the Canon 28-300L. My Nikon 28-300 is a semi permanent resident of my D7200 but occasionally I use it on my D500.
I'm sure there are lots of folks who feel the 28-300 is not a good lens because it is not absolutely tack sharp, but I am not a pixel peepers and I understand that tack sharp isn't necessary for a photo to be a good picture, sharp enough will more often than do, and both the Nikon and Canon lenses are sharp enough.
The 28-300 is a versatile lens and unlike the Canon version, the Nikon version is not massive and heavy. It is in my humble opinion a most useful and versatile focal range and I'm sure you will be very happy with it.

capmike Loc: New Bern, NC

That was my first lens for my new D 750. At first I thought it was the cats meow. But then, I got a few primes, and the difference was an eye opener. After that, any picture I took with the 28 - 300 was murky. I recently offered it for sale in this forum, no takers. Sold it to KEH, and bought the 24 - 120. Much sharper lens, and that is now my walk around lens. It all depends on what your eye is looking for. I want my focus to be tack sharp on every shot, others are less picky.

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

My 28-300 has made more photos for me than any other lens I own. Some say it's not as sharp as XX lens and that may be true but, 99.9% of the time, it doesn't matter; it's plenty sharp. Besides, shooting technique will diminish image quality faster than a lens's sharpness. Keep your technique up to par and the 28-300 will suffice in just about every circumstance. With sloppy technique, it truly doesn't matter what lens you use.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Cibafan wrote:

Folks I need a light weight walk around Lens for my FX Nikon gear. What do you think of the 28-300? I had read a while back that there were some unhappy users, maybe not as sharp as it should be. Your input will be appreciated.
Thanks

That's my "always on" lens. No regrets.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Cibafan wrote:

Folks I need a light weight walk around Lens for my FX Nikon gear. What do you think of the 28-300? I had read a while back that there were some unhappy users, maybe not as sharp as it should be. Your input will be appreciated.
Thanks

If you want a LIGHT walk around lens then the 28-300(800 grams) may be a little on the heavy side. Tamron (lesser quality) is lighter (540 grams) cause it is not built as well as the Nikon one, but, would be lighter for you.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Cibafan wrote:

Folks I need a light weight walk around Lens for my FX Nikon gear. What do you think of the 28-300? I had read a while back that there were some unhappy users, maybe not as sharp as it should be. Your input will be appreciated.
Thanks

It depends on how sharp you want your photos, how small you want the lens and what you can afford. I have the Tamron 28-300, the newer one, Di VC PZD. It is not as sharp as my best L series lenses but it way sharper than by non L series Canon lenses. The earlier Tamron 28-300 is not nearly as good.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

You can't go wrong with the FX 28-300mm. It also works great on DX bodies as well.

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

My 28-300 was soft, heavy as hell, someone else fell in love with it.

gsnelson Loc: Western Maryland

I like my 28 - 300, but I certainly don't think of it as "light weight."