Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Nikkor 28-300 f3.5-5.6 g Ed vr lens
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Jun 14, 2019 08:54:40   #
willy6419
 
Thinking a versatile walk around

Good reviews

Little slow and wide range so can’t be as sharp as some

Any input pro. Con

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 09:01:42   #
joer (a regular here)
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thinking a versatile walk around

Good reviews

Little slow and wide range so can’t be as sharp as some

Any input pro. Con


I had this lens for several years when shooting Nikon. Based on my experience its not as bad as some say and its also not as good as others indicate. Its a compromise lens and its does this very well.

Is it capable of achieving excellent result? As always, the thing behind the view finder is the weakest link in the system.

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 09:03:04   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thinking a versatile walk around

Good reviews

Little slow and wide range so can’t be as sharp as some

Any input pro. Con


Horrible lens. A little less horrible on DX or low resolution (12mp) full frame cameras.

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr

I've tried 3 different copies one from Nikon's loaner program, and 2 owned by friends, none were great. Certainly not at that price. If someone gave one to me, I'd sell it or give it away.

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 11:28:22   #
cameraf4 (a regular here)
 
willy6419 wrote:
...Good reviews ...


Where were you reading? This lens comes up on here nearly every week and (mostly) gets lambasted. I have one. Mine gives "pretty good" image detail on my D700 (12mp) and on my Df (16mp). But it sure isn't the Holy Grail.

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 11:47:25   #
Bill_de (a regular here)
 
cameraf4 wrote:
Where were you reading? This lens comes up on here nearly every week and (mostly) gets lambasted. I have one. Mine gives "pretty good" image detail on my D700 (12mp) and on my Df (16mp). But it sure isn't the Holy Grail.


I just took a look. Reviews on Amazon, B&H, and a few other retailers give it 4+ stars. I guess it depends on the 'audience'

There is another version that has a max aperture of 4.5 to 6.3 that does not do so well.

--

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 12:02:58   #
larryepage
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thinking a versatile walk around

Good reviews

Little slow and wide range so can’t be as sharp as some

Any input pro. Con


There are probably two questions that you need to ask yourself.
1. What are my expectations?
2. How often do I expect to use the extreme focal lengths?

I've considered this lens also, for the same reasons that you list. But in the end, it is a serviceable but mediocre consumer grade lens that isn't really optimally compatible with my modern full frame cameras. On the other hand, it's been around for almost 10 years, so it's not likely complete junk. If I am doing casual photography or taking snapshots, I use a DX camera for that. And I have an 18-200 DX Nikkor that I can use for that, if called for. It is also a serviceable but mediocre consumer grade lens, so it doesn't get used very often.

Please don't get me wrong here. There is nothing wrong with using consumer grade lenses, and there is nothing wrong with a lens design falling a little short. But this is a $1,100 plastic lens (with glass elements) which in my opinion is just as overpriced as the 16-80mm DX zoom that falls into about the same price point. In my mind, the story might be completely different if the list price were closer to $600, but it's not.

Both of the lenses I've mentioned are, in fact, available used for $600-750. My concern, though, is that these lenses may have been pretty heavily used. Internal wear on plastic parts could put them near the point of failure.

In the final analysis, you have to decide. One strategy that I've used when considering purchase of something that carries mixed reviews is to look around to see how many used versions of a particular lens are listed for sale. If the list is long, that serves as a warning flag there there are a whole lot of them on the market that for some reason people did not want any more. Also...look carefully at the most negative reviews. Try to determine if the problems described are real, imagined, or just user error. If real, consider whether they are important to you. Then decide.

Good luck as you move forward with your choice.

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 14:23:44   #
willy6419
 
my bad. I blew it. the E series sucks.

I meant the G series that that Ken Rockwell seems to love on his D850 as a solid, yes compromised, all around very good, relatively new (2017) versatile walk around lens.

It won't ever be as good as my 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, or the 50 1.8 and 105 micro 2.8, but thinking good vacation shots, not necessarily wall hangars, but if the guy behind the eyepiece works, could be.


Sorry I messed up. So the real question

| Reply
Jun 14, 2019 15:48:48   #
rmorrison1116 (a regular here)
 
I use that lens as my Nikon utility lens. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer but definitely ok if you want range and can bring only one lens. I have the same focal length in a Canon EF lens and although the Canon costs about three times that of the Nikkor, it's really only a bit sharper. For a general purpose utility lens, it's capable of doing a good job if used properly. I use mine mainly on a D7200, sometimes a D500. The Canon is usually mounted on a 5D mk IV.
If one is a hard core pixel peeper and is only interested in absolute tack sharp or bragging rights, this lens or any utility zoom lens is not for you.

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 06:33:53   #
alphonso49uk
 
Ive had 2 of these on full frame nikons, mainly for use on holidays and have found them both to deliver good results.If your a pixel peeper or obsessed with looking at the corners and all that then youll likely be disappointed. Your best bet is to look on flickr and see some real world shots.

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 06:59:03   #
RickTaylor
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thinking a versatile walk around

Good reviews

Little slow and wide range so can’t be as sharp as some

Any input pro. Con


I must have gotten lucky and bought the only good copy of this lens in the world as shown by all the negative reviews. While this lens is not as sharp as an expensive 70 to 200 Nikon for the money it truly is a decent lens. I have three full frame bodies a D3 a D850 a D5 as well as a Z7. I primarily leave it attached to my older D3 however I have used it on the other bodies with decent results. In my opinion if you want to cover all your bases and don’t need a fast piece of glass this lens will come in very handy as a decent walk around lens. Just understand it’s limitations. I have over a dozen framed prints hanging in my home and office ranging from birds to motocross that were taken with this lens.

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 07:03:56   #
billnikon (a regular here)
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thinking a versatile walk around

Good reviews

Little slow and wide range so can’t be as sharp as some

Any input pro. Con


It is a heavy lens, I would not recommend this lens as a WALK AROUND lens, meaning, you carry it everywhere with you. Especially not good if your going to wear it around your neck using the factory strap.
My personal walk around lens is either the 28-200 (much much lighter) or the newer 16-80 giving you the equivalent focal length of a 24-120 mm lens on a cropped sensor camera. For me, I find myself using the 16-80 all the time, much much lighter than the 28-300 and SHARPER. IMHO

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 08:50:25   #
olemikey (a regular here)
 
Like many mention, a compromise lens. I have used one (loaned by a friend) and have a shelf full of Nikon/Sony/Minolta/Tamron and Sigma superzooms, a couple are OK, a couple are pretty decent, they make good walk-arounds, vacation lenses, and if you don't pixel peep and are steady or have VR/VC/IS/IBIS (and do a good job behind the camera) they do quite well. I'd say definitely more of a casual shooter lens, not for most pro applications. That said, I have a Tamron 18-270 that the former owner used regularly for pics in her gallery in SoCal - the images look great on her website, and I've made some good one's with it too (after I repaired it). You would be better trying before you buy, or buy from a place with a good return policy, in case it doesn't "float your boat".
My $.02

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 08:57:21   #
willy6419
 
Thanks to all.

I'll look at the 16-80, and probably just stick with the 24-70 2.8---hard to beat that, get closer with my still good legs. It's not heavy to carry as I use a cotton carrier--which I think is awesome.

It's just hard to beat that 24-70.

I started really thinking of the possibility when Ken Rockwell says it's almost permanently attached to his D850 and I looked at his photos.

This forum helps provide real world experiences.

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 09:13:05   #
cameraf4 (a regular here)
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thanks to all.

I'll look at the 16-80, and probably just stick with the 24-70 2.8---hard to beat that, get closer with my still good legs. It's not heavy to carry as I use a cotton carrier--which I think is awesome.

It's just hard to beat that 24-70.

I started really thinking of the possibility when Ken Rockwell says it's almost permanently attached to his D850 and I looked at his photos.

This forum helps provide real world experiences.


Just one last thought, willy. Billnikon mentioned the 28-200mm Nikkor. (https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm). I have one (actually, I have 2). Has been my favorite "walk around" lens for years. Very good images and only about the size&weight of a 50mm f/1.4. Just sayin'.

| Reply
Jun 15, 2019 09:19:18   #
olemikey (a regular here)
 
willy6419 wrote:
Thanks to all.

I'll look at the 16-80, and probably just stick with the 24-70 2.8---hard to beat that, get closer with my still good legs. It's not heavy to carry as I use a cotton carrier--which I think is awesome.

It's just hard to beat that 24-70.

I started really thinking of the possibility when Ken Rockwell says it's almost permanently attached to his D850 and I looked at his photos.

This forum helps provide real world experiences.


Rather than duplicating range, look into a nice 70-200 or 70-300 AF or AF-S, to go with the 24-70 for the reach.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
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.