A. T.

My question to you guys and gals is, has anyone with this lens had any issues with barrel distortion or soft edges? Also, could someone comment on the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 as a possible walk-around lens. The extra reach of the 28-300mm would be nice but I'd rather not have issues that could not be resolved in post processing.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

I had a 28-300mm Nikkor, and when I bought it, I thought --as many might-- that it might be a good all-purpose-ish walk-around lens. At that same time (several years ago), I had the earlier (non-VR) version of Nikon's 24-120, and while not overly spectacular, it served my (focal length) needs admirably. (Sure, I have primes within that range, and as good as they are, often times, switching to a prime isn't especially as wise or as convenient in my sandy, dusty, desert southwest.) While I found the 28-300 (even with it's touted VR) more or less usable, it lacked any semblance of the kind of sharpness, contrast or acuity I was accustomed to, and after using it for less than 6 months, I sold it. Some time in the interim, I scuffed the front element of my 24-120 rather badly (my fault entirely), so seeking to replace that, did so by buying the then current (non-Z) 24-120. WHAT A GREAT LENS! (I likewise have one or the HT [Hotly Trinninity] 24-70 Nikkors, and strangely, that lens gets less use than my present 24-120.

I've seen/read 'reviews' of the 28-300, and many have said they liked the lens a lot. I did not. I found that it comes nowhere close (apart from it's reach) to the 24-120. And that's before --and even moreso, after-- any software correction or augmentation has been applied.

Maybe I just had a dog of a 28-300? I dunno. It could happen I guess, but if I need a longer lens, I have those too.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I suspect the 28-300 had some production problems. I have read great reviews and horrible reviews. People love it or hate it. I have one and I find it to be one of my go-to lenses because it has a great range. I have other lenses that are better and for critical use they are the ones that get used. But the 28-300 is on my camera now and all the other lenses are in storage because we're in between houses. The 28-300 does just fine for casual shots, which is most of what I take right now. Family photos, fine. Vacation shots, fine. Weddings or events, probably I use the better lenses. I actually bought two of them. The first one disappeared from my truck with my D3. When I replaced the D3 I also got another copy of the lens. It worked just as well as the first copy.

So either the 28-300 has quality that is variable depending on individual copies or I am not too picky about my photos. Could be either or both. I will keep mine.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

When I was looking for an occasional alternative for my 17-55mm f/2.8 D lens but better than my 18-200mm DX zoom on my D500, I looked at a number of choices, including the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 DX zoom. Most choices were too big, too heavy, too mediocre, or too expensive. I bought a 24-120mm f/4 and have been very happy with it. I bought a second one in a Nikon refurb sale last year for the same function on a D850 to use at times in place of my f/2.8 zooms. I have been very happy with these lenses for my intended use. My only observation is that they seem to transmit slightly less color than the big zooms, which is easily managed by camera adjustments. Of note is that when I am using these lenses, I am usually making JPEGs that will not be processed further. There has never been a problem doing that, but I do have my Picture Controls adjusted a little bit differently from what I would use with the big zooms.

I did not seriously consider the 28-300. If I'm going to drag a lens that big and heavy around, I'll just use one of the f/2.8 zooms. Of course, your needs and wants may be different, but that was the rationale for my choice.

User ID

I have both, and they excel at their intended applications. Thaz why they have become so popular despite their notorious imperfections.

Their "warts" are universally acknowledged. I had learned long ago that extreme zooms are not for critical copy work nor for architectural images. Given youve got "issues" your choice is between premium prime lenses or therapy.

That could get expensive but the lenses are a much more affordable choice. IOW, I wouldnt ever prescribe either of these zoom lenses for your condition, for fear of an allergic reaction.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not own a Nikon 28-300 VR but I am pretty familiar with it. Lenses with such a spread of focal lengths will have optical compromises and barrel distortion could be one of them. In general, a good editor will take care of that.
Zooms are usually bought for convenience. Today's zooms are better than ever and professional zooms compete in quality with prime lenses.

The 28-300 is a good lens but understand that good photo techniques are required to obtain the best performance especially at the tele focal lengths. The images I have seen have been very convincing to me but I am not a pixel peeper nor I enlarge to mural sizes.
Another lens I want to mention and I own one of them is the Nikon 18-200 DX, VR. I use the lens with my old D7000 and I have been entirely satisfied with its performance when I have done my part.

As I said, all of these zooms are going to have some optical compromises. Rent the one you have in mind, use good photo techniques while shooting and then look at the images and make your own decision.

Mau

I bought my 28-300mm VR from a reputable Nikon store that is famous for repairs. They had a used one for sale and I bought it. They recalibrate it, test it, clean it, the works, and then sell their lens and cameras.
It is glued on my D780 except for occasional times when I try the 50mm f1.4G or the 85mm 1.8G for bokeh shots.

A. T.

First, thanks for the quick response and thanks for sharing your experience with both lenses. I think I'll be purchasing the 24-120mm.

A. T.

Okay, thanks for responding and thanks for the information.

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

B&H reviews are at a 4.6 out of 5 stars.
I agree with many professional photographers who say the results you get are a direct result of the experience, skill, and knowledge of the photographer.
Many rate that lens high, many rate that lens lower. The results you get are up to you. Most inexpensive zooms suffer barrel distortion and soft edges. But how much softness is OK. With most lenses the middle stays sharp, so that is where the main subject is anyway.
I have shot that lens with quite good results.
To be honest I found the newer 24-120 a very sharp lens, heavy as a carry around lens all day but a very nice lens indeed.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

A. T.

Thanks for your response and I think I'm going to purchase the 24-120.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

I suggest you do an analysis of the shots you have taken with the 28-300. Specifically the # of shots at different focal lengths. Should be easy based on your PP software.
I did this exercise when deciding whether to purchase the 24-200 or keeping my 28-300 for my Z6 at the time. I wanted to transition to a Z lens if it made sense.
It turns out that I had a minimal # of shots kept at 200-300. So I went with the 24-200 and sold the 28-300.
I did the same evaluation when the Z 24-120 came out. But I have a significant % in the 120-200 range.
Therefore, I have not purchased the Z24-120.
While there are quality differences, they are not significant for my needs.

User ID

Way cool. Its a little smaller, a little faster and a little bit wider. And those little things all add up, especially if you dont really need 300mm.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

After using the 28-300 in the field for numerous subjects, I came across some information that led me to swap it out for the Nikon 18-300 VR DX. I've found it to be everything & more with extreme clean edges & no distortion. Ken Rockwell a well known independent tester has a very good write up on it
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm#dx

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

I think the perception of how good the 28 -300 lens is will depend on the camera. I was reasonably happy with the 18 to 300 on my d500 that i used as my walk around; so I bought the 28 -300 to go with my new D850 and was disappointed with the resulting shots not being sharp. I later read professionals that said the 28 -300 was great until they upgraded to the D850.

I think 47 megapixels needs better glass where the 24. mp on the d780 or the d800 at 36 mp will do fine. Note the 28-300 has been discontinued and can still be found for $500 to less than $1,000. I use the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 vr that are over $2K each. again how large of print do you want and how much you will crop will also define how good of glass is required.