Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
thoughts on nikon 28-300mm lens for D800
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4
Jul 23, 2018 20:30:47   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
From the responses here, it could be assumed that this lens is a hit or miss piece of Nikon equipment.
--Bob

| Reply
Jul 23, 2018 20:43:31   #
DesRose
 
rmalarz wrote:
From the responses here, it could be assumed that this lens is a hit or miss piece of Nikon equipment.
--Bob


Or, the photographers BEHIND this equipment are hit or miss.

| Reply
Jul 23, 2018 21:15:15   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
rjrbigdog wrote:
So having a 24-70mm , 70-200mm both 2.8 and a 70-300mm all Nikon is better then just having one lens 28-300mm?


Yes - if you value IQ over convenience...

..

| Reply
Jul 23, 2018 22:02:22   #
Flash Falasca
 
have it love it ,just got the D800 so I just snapped a few these were at 300mm 6400 iso


(Download)


(Download)

| Reply
Jul 24, 2018 15:09:37   #
JonClayton
 
I have it and love it. I have good contrast, sharp images and I take them up to 16x24 with no problem. It is perfect as a carry around lens when you do not want to carry a bag. It is my go to lens when I am traveling and have limited space to swing my bag around to get a different lens. I have a D810 and I calibrated the lens to it and have no complaints.

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 00:40:52   #
racerrich3
 
mas24 wrote:
The discontinued D3300 is better than the D3400, IMO. Nikon is planning on the D3500 release by the end of this year.


thank you mas24. (i missed this email on mon and tues).

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 08:44:54   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
alphonso49uk wrote:
It doesnt have to be razor sharp...the raw files are massive and you can sharpen to your hearts content in post processing without the photos looking like theyve been overdone.


You can't add fine detail in post processing that wasn't originally captured no matter how hard you try.

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 09:03:27   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
rmalarz wrote:
Maybe I have looked close enough. I regularly make 12x18 prints and occasionally 24x36 prints. They are quite sharp with no perceivable issues. However, I will admit to not peeping pixels. That in itself is a waste of time.
--Bob


As you probably know, making larger prints that look good is not a criterion for lens quality or sharpness. At 24x36 you can't peep pixels unless you are a member of the raptor species.

It's the reason why you can take an iPhone image and print it to billboard size and it will still look great.

My issues with this lens are the following:

Terrible edge and corner sharpness - not great for landscape
coma - just bad to have a lens with bad coma
chromatic aberration - yes, you can use CA correction, but that adds another step
vignetting - again, this can be corrected
distortion - pin cushion and barrel - also correctable to some degree
bokeh - totally dreadful and busy - not correctable
focus breathing - who wants a lens that is promoted as a 300mm at maximum zoom that can barely manage to return a field of view equivalent to a 135mm lens -
no tripod colllar- making it a challenge to use on a tripod.
no dust and moisture sealing - it is a fair-weather lens - and not one you'd want to take to the shore, particularly on a windy day
cheap feel, slow handling, etc

And the worst part - it costs $1000.

I wanted to love this lens when I first considered getting one - I borrowed a friend's copy for a day - hated it. Then I waited almost a year and borrowed one from NPS program - had it for 2 weeks - hated it. Fast forward to last year, when I borrowed one from another friend - hated it. To Nikon's credit - they were all consistently awful, and in the same ways. Good to excellent QA, awful design and engineering.

There is a good thing though - most of the issues with this lens are at the periphery of the image - making it almost reasonable to use on a crop camera. The center portion of the lens isn't bad. It is also much better on a 12 mp camera than a D8XX camera - which really reveals it's flaws.

The concept of a "walk around lens" eludes me. There are so many compromises in the reality of a walk around lens - I'd rather spend a little more and get two lenses that are better in quality, even used. I have a great "walk around" lens - an old 28-105, F3.5 - F4.5 - that I paid $120 for. It is quite sharp, gets me to 1:2 magnification, is small and light and it covers an FX sensor very nicely. I actually like it better than the wider zoom range 24-120 F4. I don't need to walk around with a $1000 28-300 mm lens that is awful at 300mm. But that's just me. Truth be told, when Nikon builds a "better" 28-300 I might buy it. If only there was a way to convert the Canon lens of the same focal length to Nikon mount and retain all the auto features and communication with the bodies. . . I wouldn't mind paying $2200 for one of those.

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 09:10:24   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
selmslie wrote:
Any image will look OK if you stand back far enough because normal viewing distance is about the same as the print width. That's why you can get away with about 9 MP and print to any size.

According to the link I posted, DxOMark figures the Nikon version of this lens delivers about 11 MP (perceptual). By comparison the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G delivers 30 and the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di can do 16.

None of the moderate to super zooms even come close to a decent prime lens.

Why would anyone invest in a 36 MP camera and then handicap it with an 11 MP lens?
Any image will look OK if you stand back far enoug... (show quote)


Like buying a new Porsche Turbo S and ordering it with 4 spare "donuts" and justifying the decision by saying - the tires are round and they will get me from point A to point B without any problems. Kinda misses the point, don'tcha think?

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 09:12:25   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
Wow, I missed this post. One can't sharpen details that were captured in the initial exposure. If something isn't there, it isn't there to sharpen.
--Bob
alphonso49uk wrote:
It doesnt have to be razor sharp...the raw files are massive and you can sharpen to your hearts content in post processing without the photos looking like theyve been overdone.

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 09:14:31   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
DesRose wrote:
Or, the photographers BEHIND this equipment are hit or miss.



| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 09:22:23   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
Gene51 wrote:
... Truth be told, when Nikon builds a "better" 28-300 I might buy it. . . . I wouldn't mind paying $2200 for one of those.

Why would anyone build a Swiss army knife lens that is as good as separate primes or several low-ratio zoom lenses? It would be corporate suicide. It's never going to happen.

Interchangeable lens cameras are made so that you can actually change from one good lens to another.

Anyone who does not want to change lenses under certain circustances should consider a point and shoot camera.

| Reply
Jul 26, 2018 09:27:56   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
Gene, you do make some very good points. The best of them is the lack of a tripod mount. That is one feature I do miss with mine. Yes, the price is a bit high. That much I'll grant. As for bokeh, I'm not looking for that characteristic and generally use small apertures for DOF. Most of the photos I print are not cropped and I've not noticed significant degradation of the image in the corners. There is some distortion at the wider angle focal lengths, but nothing worse than my fixed focal length lenses at equivalent focal lengths. Yes, easily correctable. Vignetting, I'm OK with that as I usually burn the edges of my photos anyway. I'll have to take a close look at the corners. I have a 135 f/2.8 Nikkor. I'll have to compare that with the 28~300 at 300. The weekend is coming up. So, perhaps a bit of testing will take up some of the spare time, and keep me out of the heat.

Gene, I'm not trying to sell you on this lens, nor anyone else. It just seems to satisfactorily do all I purchased it to do. Though, for day to day use, I generally have a 28~85 lens on my camera. For that one, as with any other, I usually have a Merrell Zoom System with me, if needed.
--Bob

Gene51 wrote:
As you probably know, making larger prints that look good is not a criterion for lens quality or sharpness. At 24x36 you can't peep pixels unless you are a member of the raptor species.

It's the reason why you can take an iPhone image and print it to billboard size and it will still look great.

My issues with this lens are the following:

Terrible edge and corner sharpness - not great for landscape
coma - just bad to have a lens with bad coma
chromatic aberration - yes, you can use CA correction, but that adds another step
vignetting - again, this can be corrected
distortion - pin cushion and barrel - also correctable to some degree
bokeh - totally dreadful and busy - not correctable
focus breathing - who wants a lens that is promoted as a 300mm at maximum zoom that can barely manage to return a field of view equivalent to a 135mm lens -
no tripod colllar- making it a challenge to use on a tripod.
no dust and moisture sealing - it is a fair-weather lens - and not one you'd want to take to the shore, particularly on a windy day
cheap feel, slow handling, etc

And the worst part - it costs $1000.

I wanted to love this lens when I first considered getting one - I borrowed a friend's copy for a day - hated it. Then I waited almost a year and borrowed one from NPS program - had it for 2 weeks - hated it. Fast forward to last year, when I borrowed one from another friend - hated it. To Nikon's credit - they were all consistently awful, and in the same ways. Good to excellent QA, awful design and engineering.

There is a good thing though - most of the issues with this lens are at the periphery of the image - making it almost reasonable to use on a crop camera. The center portion of the lens isn't bad. It is also much better on a 12 mp camera than a D8XX camera - which really reveals it's flaws.

The concept of a "walk around lens" eludes me. There are so many compromises in the reality of a walk around lens - I'd rather spend a little more and get two lenses that are better in quality, even used. I have a great "walk around" lens - an old 28-105, F3.5 - F4.5 - that I paid $120 for. It is quite sharp, gets me to 1:2 magnification, is small and light and it covers an FX sensor very nicely. I actually like it better than the wider zoom range 24-120 F4. I don't need to walk around with a $1000 28-300 mm lens that is awful at 300mm. But that's just me. Truth be told, when Nikon builds a "better" 28-300 I might buy it. If only there was a way to convert the Canon lens of the same focal length to Nikon mount and retain all the auto features and communication with the bodies. . . I wouldn't mind paying $2200 for one of those.
As you probably know, making larger prints that lo... (show quote)

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.