Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

I have been using the 28-300 for 4 years now on my D300s and D600. When I first got it I didn't think I made a good choice. But after playing with it I found it was back focusing and did a test and added focus in camera and now it is a great lens. I love it for most of my work.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I have often recommended the 28-300 mm Nikon lens to full-frame owners that wanted an all in one lens... while a little heavy (as others in Nikon Support complained), I pointed out that it is a LOT lighter than carrying 2 complimentary zoom lenses and less expensive than the 24-80 and 70-300 Fx lenses combined. I too was dubious about it, until I took it and a D800 out for a week and tested it on nature shoots.. I was pleasantly surprised and found that (while keeping in mind that as an "all-in-one" lens it is a compromise) it does a good job in most circumstances and an outstanding job in some. I shot about 1 hour of video and 3,000 pics over 5 days and was pleased with the results. Plus, if you are traveling, it cuts the number of lenses that you have to carry considerably. In addition, it wasn't that much larger than the 70-300 but you had the ability to zoom infinitely between 28 and 300 without having to stop and change lenses. It's cousin, the DX 18-300 wasn't bad either but didn't seem to have the quality of pics that I was getting off the other. But, in defense of the 18-300, I was testing it on a D3100 and the difference may well have been the body. There is a huge difference between the D800 and the D3100, in terms of feel, etc. Also, the weight of the D800 body with the 24-300mm lens seemed well balanced where the weight of the (much lighter weight) D3100 with the 18-300 on it seemed awkward, front heavy and cumbersome. The 18-300 would probably be fine on a D7100 and feel more similar to the feel of the 28-300 on the D800. These are just my opinions, and of course other Techs at Nikon had different feelings.. I also love the 80-400mm lens both the older version and especially the new SWM verson and others complained about everything from weight to speed.. (of course 3 of them love and purchases Nikon 1's so there is no counting for taste. lol).

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

someone once told me you had the nikon trinity and sold them to get better quality glass and now you say you use the 28-300.

So much for rumors.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And using it at the short end of the focal length is a bit misleading, because this is where the results are acceptable. But you buy a 28-300 lens with the hope of acceptable quality at the other end - and it simply does not deliver. And if you go close to the near focus limit - guess what? Focus breathing is so severe that you essentially have a 135mm lens.

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/4

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/%28lens1%29/323/%28lens2%29/349/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikkor/%28brand2%29/Tamron

There is no honest and trustworthy reviewer that actually measures this lens and claims that it is a great lens. The emphasis is on honest and trustworthy, which excludes the Ken Rockwell types.

MtnMan Loc: ID

There are plenty of us that must qualify as not honest and/or trustworthy. I'm one of the many here on UHH that are very happy with it as our go-to lens on a D800. The flexibility outweighs the image weaknesses relative to primes or shorter range zooms in many instances.

While watching his videos I was interested to note that National Geo photographer Joel Sartore uses it as his walkaround lens also. I didn't realize he wasn't honest or trustworthy.

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

For a walk around every day lens it is awesome. Would I use it for weddings? NO! For helping Jeff with weddings I take the 14-24,24-70,70-200. And the 28-300 for going outside for the shots of the folks milling around. I just do second shooter with Jef. So far he has made money from my shots.:) It is a fun lens for walking in the parks and keeping in the truck.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Now that is a realistic use for the lens.
It isn't a top quality lens but it serves its purpose well if used with discretion.

ragatazz Loc: Michigan

I have been using this lens for over 3 years. It is the only lens I carry during the day while on vacation. I love it. Its a little heavy but no big deal.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You are taking what I said completely out of context - I am talking about reviewers, and any of them that claim that is is a great lens. It isn't. Not by Nikon's own measure (which tells me everything I need to know), or by reputable, reliable and trustworthy reviewers that are not afraid to tell it like it is. It is not a great lens, and in my opinion, it is passable, if you don't mind trading image quality for convenience, for casual shooting I suppose. For me, and everyone's mileage is different, it doesn't hit my standard, and maybe I am just that much more fussy than others who like it. For the life if me I can't see buying a $3000 or $3500 camera with 36 mp and getting less than optimal performance from it. So I try and get the best glass I can afford. And trust me, I wanted this to be a hit in the worst way. I previously had an 18-200 on myD70, D200 and D300 and it was what I considered a reasonable compromise - great at the wider end and ok at the long end. I would have been happy if I got similar performance from any of the three 28-300s that I tried. I didn't. I don't make the convenience vs image quality compromise easily. If I need decent quality at 300mm and some flexibility, I will use an 80-400 VR which is in a different league. Yeah, it's bigger and heavier and cost more, but I won't be looking at my images and saying, "gee, I wish I had my 'good" lens with me when I took that picture."

As far as Joel Sartore, I would be curious to know if he bought his lens and paid $1000 for it, or if it was "provided" to him by Nikon as being recognized as being one of the "Legends Behind the Lens" - in which case if Nikon gave me one, I'd certainly attach it to a camera and be seen walking around with it.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

The title of the post asks if the lens is ..."good enough..."

The simple and obvious answer is it depends on one's definition of good enough. Arguing about the merits of a lens is frankly a waste of time until you define good enough.

As the replies her clearly show, some folks answer yes and some answer no and neither answer is wrong. If you don't like the lens, don't use it. If you find it good enough, then as my kids say, "Duh! The answer is yes".

Trying to ram either conclusion down another's throat serves no purpose.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

The 28-300 mm lens works fine. Patagonia is a difficult environment to shoot in because of rapidly moving clouds especially across the horns, massif and towers. Excellent picture. Attached is a raw -> JPEG with no PP. It will only get better. This was taken with D4s. Joe Sartore's (Nat Geo) recommends the 28-300 mm Nikon as the best travel lens in his Travel Photography DVD

28-300 mm on Nikon D4s no PP

(Download)

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I absolutely agree. It's a great lens.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I use the Nikon 28-300 almost exclusively on my D800E. The D810 is reserved for the 300mm f/2.8 VR II w/TC14E II. I don't like changing lenses unless absolutely necessary.

In reviews the zoom has distortion, chromatic aberration, its edges don't measure up to the center and its heavy. At 300mm the IQ is less than stellar.

But it is nearly the perfect range to cover 85% of what I shoot and most of its shortcomings are correctable it post processing.

Additionally the lens does not create a shadow on my camera when using the built in flash at any zoom setting providing the hood is removed and even with the hood on at the longer settings. A feature I find very useful since I don't like carrying equipment bags.

For awhile I lost direction and went through a bunch of smaller sensor and lighter cameras but this combination blows all of them away. A costly mistake on my part, but lesson learned.

Does it satisfy the pixel peepers, maybe not but the image quality is quite adequate to capture images that satisfy all but the elitists.

After all the weakest link in photography is seldom the equipment.

has been

I would be interested to know which camera listed above gives you the best picture, using the 28-300mm lens.

edhjr Loc: Needham, MA

The 800 or 810 plus 28-300 is a great travel combination -- small, light flexible, etc. I have used it in many countries and environments where "big camera/lens combinations" are not flexible enough, are too conspicuous, or are just in the way. Think the markets of Marrakesh, Times Square NYC, or on a trail in the Amazon. In the last two years I have great, saleable pictures from all those places with this combo. Have the big f2.8 lenses and they have their place too but the 28-300/D800 or 810 is a powerful and useful combo.