70-300 vs 28-300
Apr 1, 2014 06:38:29 #
I have never been a big fan of ultra long range lenses since they first came out so my vote goes to the 70-300 which is about as wide a range as I feel comfortable with. I had photographers that work for me that had 28-300 and 18-200's and when looking at their images I could tell a marked difference.
Apr 1, 2014 07:23:43 #
I have both. I prefer the 28-300. Its sharper, great bokea and its great for weddings as well as a walk around lens. (you don't have to change lenses as much) Its a little heavy but you get used to carrying it and its not so bad. I have a great shoulder strap so it is hardly noticeable carrying it all day.
Apr 1, 2014 09:00:10 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I DO Have them both, and use my 28-300mm almost daily. Both are very good lenses, but the focal range of the 28-300mm is a clear winner, as is the VR II system.
:thumbup: :thumbup: I wasn't happy with the 70-300. It is an OK lens, though. The 28-300 is excellent. It is very versatile. Use mine a lot.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm
Apr 1, 2014 09:36:45 #
Bozsik wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: I wasn't happy with the 70-300. It is an OK lens, though. The 28-300 is excellent. It is very versatile. Use mine a lot.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm
There is a recent thread here you might search for as well. All of us that actually own a 28-300 are happy with it.
One cannot over value the range. It is quite an all-purpose performer.
You need to make sure your lens profile is up to date if you shoot jpeg and apply the CA correction in Lightroom when needed. You also need to apply the lens correction in Lightroom if shooting RAW.
The only downside I see is weight. Combined with a D800 it is pretty heavy. I recently bought a mirror less for hiking and air travel.
As a side, some recent shots at f22 didn't impres me. I'm going to limit it to f16 from now on. It does fine from there to min f-stop and over the full zoom range...but if I need serious zoom I mount up the Sigma 150-500 . So if I were to do it over I might look to a 28-200 if they make one.
Apr 1, 2014 09:42:36 #
Gene51 wrote:
28-300 is pretty bad beyond 150mm. So is the 70-30... (show quote)
24-120 might indeed be a good choice if you have a Sigma 150-500 for the long range stuff.
I don't often use between 120 and 300 because unless a pop up shot I switch to the Sigma.
Apr 1, 2014 09:47:29 #
Apr 1, 2014 09:53:27 #
Christm wrote:
Does anyone have both these lenses and which do you feel is the better lens.
The 70-300 is optically better. 28-300 is more versatile. It depends on how its used.
Apr 1, 2014 10:00:36 #
Gene51 wrote:
28-300 is pretty bad beyond 150mm. So is the 70-30... (show quote)
I am using a Nikon D600
Apr 1, 2014 10:09:01 #
Christm wrote:
I am using a Nikon D600
I also have a 24-85. I was wondering if that 28-300 was a better lens than the 70-300 that I currently have. I would like to get something out to 500mm.
Apr 1, 2014 11:38:37 #
First of all there is a $750.00 price point difference. That should say something about the 2 lenses.
I use the 28-300mm 80% of the time and when I need to get out farther I use a 17-50mm. I use 35mm as a brake point.
Other than a 2x teleconverter that's all I seem to have time for when I'm in the shooting Zone.
Craig
I use the 28-300mm 80% of the time and when I need to get out farther I use a 17-50mm. I use 35mm as a brake point.
Other than a 2x teleconverter that's all I seem to have time for when I'm in the shooting Zone.
Craig
Apr 1, 2014 14:22:06 #
I have them both. I had the 70-300mm first and used it a lot, the quality is amazing for what it is. Love it!
When I got the 28-300mm I expected a drop off in quality in exchange for the versatility. I cant find the drop off in image quality in everyday use!
Spent several days shooting backyard birds with both lenses at 300mm. Couldn't distinguish a difference.
When I got the 28-300mm I expected a drop off in quality in exchange for the versatility. I cant find the drop off in image quality in everyday use!
Spent several days shooting backyard birds with both lenses at 300mm. Couldn't distinguish a difference.
Apr 1, 2014 15:21:07 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
CraigFair wrote:
First of all there is a $750.00 price point difference. That should say something about the 2 lenses.
I use the 28-300mm 80% of the time and when I need to get out farther I use a 17-50mm. I use 35mm as a brake point.
Other than a 2x teleconverter that's all I seem to have time for when I'm in the shooting Zone.
Craig
I use the 28-300mm 80% of the time and when I need to get out farther I use a 17-50mm. I use 35mm as a brake point.
Other than a 2x teleconverter that's all I seem to have time for when I'm in the shooting Zone.
Craig
I'm not sure where you see a $750 price difference. On B&H:
* Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR, $600, 4x zoom
* Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, $1050, 11x zoom
With such a difference in zoom range, there is no way to correlate price and quality.
Apr 1, 2014 15:42:52 #
Michael66
Loc: Queens, New York
amehta wrote:
Yes, but the Nikon 80-400mm costs as much, so it's hard to throw stones at anyone's pricing model.
Now there's a lens that will give you upper body strength! I wish there was a left handed version of the D7100 so I could work out both arms, equally!
Christm wrote:
Does anyone have both these lenses and which do you feel is the better lens.
I'm assuming that you are referring to the later/better one? There is a $100 ( or so ) version, that is AF only and the focus is a soft as heck. Stay away from that one. The other two, I've only mounted them for a while. Actually, it was the 28-300 that drove me to Tamron.
Apr 1, 2014 16:44:54 #
My Bad, $550.00
Nikon AF-S-Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR IF M/A Lens
on Ebay $344.99 New
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens
on Ebay $895.00 New
Nikon AF-S-Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR IF M/A Lens
on Ebay $344.99 New
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens
on Ebay $895.00 New
Apr 1, 2014 16:47:17 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
CraigFair wrote:
My Bad, $550.00
Nikon AF-S-Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR IF M/A Lens
on Ebay $344.99 New
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens
on Ebay $895.00 New
Nikon AF-S-Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR IF M/A Lens
on Ebay $344.99 New
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens
on Ebay $895.00 New
The Ebay prices come with red flags, or at least yellow flags.
But the main point is that having an 11x zoom instead of a 4x zoom explains a lot of the price difference, I think. I would say one is paying for versatility more than quality.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.