RickTaylor

I disagree with the bad reviews of this lens. I purchased this lens when I bought my first FX D600 and it has served me well. I still use it primarily as a travel-all purpose lens on myD850. It is capable of producing high quality images. It is certainly not a fast lens however it’s focus is sharp. I don’t believe you will be disappointed with this lens.

mbarrett635 Loc: Harrisburg PA

I have both lenses. I use the 28-300 when I travel for its 'all in one' ability, but as others have said, it is both large and heavy, and it's not the sharpest lens in my bag by far. But it is far from what I'd call bad. Its kind of like a saying about tires -- "long lasting, great handling, cheap: you can only have two at any one time." The same is true of lenses. If this were as sharp as my recently acquired 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR (an amazing lens btw, especially when paired with my D5), then the 28-300 would no doubt be even heavier and more expensive.

Ultimately it comes down to what you want. If you want the sharpest lens possible, then this isn't the one for you (get the 70-200 I mentioned); but you'll lose reach on both ends, plus it's bigger (although it doesn't seem heavier). If you want convenience in an all around package, this is a good choice, but maybe the Tamron someone mentioned might be a better one.

If you are just looking to get into full frame photography, then maybe there are other completely different lenses you should consider, depending upon what you are shooting. I have a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED that is incredibly sharp, and is my go to lens for portrait or event photography. Its also about $600 cheaper then the newer VR version, and I've never felt that I was missing anything by not having image stabilization on this lens. The Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is about $700 cheaper than the 24-70 (it's not as fast), but would seem to be a good lens for a general purpose walk-around full frame lens. I don't own one, but it appears to be generally well reviewed. If your interests tend toward landscape photography, you might look for something even wider.

I realize I've digressed somewhat from your initial question about the 28-300, but as with most things, different tools are better (or worse) for different jobs. It all comes down to what you want to do, and of course, what do you want to pay.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I can see that my 28-300 is not as great at IQ as my other Nikon lenses, but it is still quite good and I use it whenever I don't want to hassle with changing lenses.

SheilaG Loc: Central Arkansas

Thanks everyone for your advise and suggestions. I will be looking into some of the mid-range zooms that have been mentioned! Thanks for all the help.

SheilaG Loc: Central Arkansas

Very helpful to hear of your experiences with the different lenses. I appreciate the help.

Sheila

rossk Loc: Melbourne, Australia

You must have inherited some duds. I have been using the 28-300 mm lens for 4 years now and regard it as a great cover-all lens especially when I am travelling. Have used it on a D750, D800, D810 and now D850 with very good results

Lucius Loc: Denver, Colorado

I use the 24 to 120. As my walk around lens

Robeng Loc: California

Hi SheilaG,

I have this lens and I use it all the time on my full frame Nikons. Its a good overall travel lens because of its wide range and I recommend it for that. I know Gene51 hates it but everyone has their opinions.

I've attached a few images I took a couple of weekends ago using that lens.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A friend owns the FX 28-300mm that he uses on his DX D7100. I told him there were some on this forum that had no praise for his lens. He bought that lens, because if he ever buys a used or refurbished full frame camera. He would already have a FX lens for it. He loves the 28-300mm.

Nuclear13 Loc: North Lauderdale, Florida

Gene. I beg to differ with your opinion. I was at the Brevard County Zoo this past New Years Weekend. The first picture I'm down loading is from my Nikon D5/F5.6/1:320Sec./ISO 5600/300mm. The second picture is from my D5/F5.6/1:320Sec./ISO 5000/300mm. The lens is the 28-300mm lens you don't like. I love the images.

(Download)


(Download)

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

That is common thinking that I have always found to be expensive. If you buy a lesser lens (or any other piece of equipment, photo or otherwise) with the thinking that you will save for the "better one later", you end up buying twice. More times than not, that ends up more expensive overall.

As for trying to gain insights from comments made on a forum like this, the problem is that you really have no way of evaluating the standards of those who comment. So while Gene states categorically that the lens is awful and other argue that they find it a great piece of gear - you the OP has no way of comparing Gene's standards and the standards of others with yours. In fact, how can anyone give you advice about what you will deem satisfactory. If you are not particularly critical in your photography and if you never enlarge anything > than 4x6, then the lens in question may work just fine for you. But if you are looking for a lens that will allow you to make larger prints and/or you have a low tolerance for less that stellar images, you may not like the lens. While I am on my high horse, do you understand and can you make use of the particular advantages your semi-high end camera body offers? Your body has some pretty fair capabilities - it is a marvelous machine, but if you mount say the 24-70/2.8 lens on it, are you going to be taking advantage of all of the things that fantastic (and expensive) piece of glass can do on that fantastic body? If not, there is not much point in spending the cash.

Addendum - I ditto the recommendation for the 24-120/4 lens. That will simply blow the doors off of the 28-200. No contest.

By the way - count me on the side of Gene. I think that this particular lens is pretty awful and is nothing but a compromise that does nothing particularly well other than allow a shooter to carry a single lens for convenience. If you want a camera that allows you to walk around with just one lens for all occasions, you would do better buying one of the excellent Canon or Sony bridge cameras which have very sophisticated capabilities and lenses that perform better than the one you are considering. But then again - I am hypercritical when it comes to my photography so a lens that does everything but excels at nothing is not for me. I am not criticizing the skills of those who sing this lens's praises. I am just pointing out that some folks have lower bars than others.

My best suggestion to you is to ignore all of the "reviews" of this lens which you have received here and just buy one from B&H, try it for yourself for 28 days and, if you are dissatisfied, return it for a full refund and try a different solution. What other people think really is not a substitute for trying one out for yourself and deciding whether it is the solution to your problem.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I bought my 28-300 a short while after purchasing my D700 several years back. It fit a need at the time. And while it has great range, I find it only adequate quality wise. I now only use it when:
- I know light will not be an issue.
- I need reach on a distant subject. Focus breathing is an issue at close range. But for long range, it is my longest lens.
- I expect that I will need to be able to take advantage of the entire range of the lens in a short amount of time, as in rapidly approaching subjects.

It can be a very convenient all-around lens. I keep it on my camera when I leave the house primarily because of it's versatility. I've gotten some nice shots with the lens, but when I'm trying to get a critical shot, unless one of the above 3 conditions applies, it's not the lens I want on my camera.

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

When I first got a DSLR it was a D200 and I got the 18-200 to go with it. I enjoyed that lens until I got something better.

When I got into FX bodies I used a 24-70 and 70-200 a lot. Eventually I heard some good reviews about the 28-300 and picked one up. I found it to be a good general purpose lens although it was definitely not as sharp as the 24-70-200. Also a bit slow in the aperture department. However, even though it wasn't perfect, I found it to be good enough so it got used a lot for casual shots.

When my D3/28-300 disappeared out of my truck I got a D4 and another 28-300.

I have heard a number of bad reviews about this lens and also a number of good reviews. I have to conclude that different copies of the lens can show variations in IQ. I have had two copies and both of them were about the same, i.e. acceptable IQ for casual work but just slightly lacking for important work. The lens spends a lot of time on one of my camera bodies or another.

SheilaG Loc: Central Arkansas

Hey Rick

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Simple questions often bring out details that were left out or not thought of as others with more experience than me, share their experiences. I appreciate everyone's feedback and taking the time to write and help out. Just so you know, I am not looking for one lens to do it all (how boring would that be). And the camera body I purchased is more camera that I have owned before, I wanted to go a little beyond where I was. I am not a professional photographer but I do know what I want to do and would like to have good quality pictures. I print them from time to time. It is a past-time that I enjoy and with this camera, gives me a chance to learn some new skills and help out with some projects I have in mind.

I do agree with the buying twice ordeal ending up to be more expensive. Just had not really considered it from that point of view. But, I think photography is sort of that way, there is always something new and better on the horizon.

As far as getting insights here, I read here and also other places, but nothing can replace personal experience with the lens.. So I am narrowing my options and will chose a lens to try out, hopefully, I will be pleased and can move on to something else.

Good night and more later!!

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I have the 28-300 fx lens and love it on the d7200 dx .... it does take very sharp photos on the 7200 but i suspect on an fx body it will show some vignetting at the wider end. It is a bit heavy but i don't mind the heft....use it as a walkaround and gp lens. Angle of view like a 42-450mm on an fx body.