olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I agree, and this forum needed a resident "Beaver" expert. .. . . ................

redlegfrog

And thats how the fight started! :-)

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Absolutely true!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Phew! That's a relief. I guess I'll keep mine, then.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

I see from your portrait that you play tuba, or is that a euphonium. I have a baritone, which I can play but not well. I am currently taking trombone lessons from the trombone professor at BYU. As for photography and poking fun I try not to poke fun at anyone. Not everyone has the same level of expertise on a camera. Lord knows that I am still at the lower level myself. Once in a while I get a good shot but have to wonder....is it because I am a good photographer or is it just luck.

MCHUGH Loc: Jacksonville, Texas

I know what you mean about being reminded of something long forgotten. I taught a continuing education at a local Jr college one time, a beginners course and I think I learned and relearned more than my students.

kd7eir Loc: Tucson, AZ

I'm just curious - what does returning your 28-300 Canon have to do with the Nikon FX 28-300mm that was being discussed?

Haydon

Unacceptable Image Quality (it's the exact same variable focal length) that a high magnification lens typically has because of physical optical restrictions. This lens is either love or hated by both camps. Hope that clears up your confusion.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

don w-37

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Did you calibrate the autofocus for the lens to the camera's body before you judged the lens to be inferior and returned it? In all probability there was nothing inferior about the lens. That is because all mechanical dimensions in the lens mount and the camera's body have tolerances that can be either plus or minus from the nominal. If your camera's body is at the top of the tolerance, for example, and the lens is also at the top of it's tolerance, the net result will be an additive effect or visa versa. With combined negative tolerances the result will also be an out of focus image. Note that individually the lens and camera bodys are within the manufacturing tolerances. Every lens should be calibrated to your camera before you make a judgement about it or use it to take pictures. The first two links below will explain how to do that using different methods for both Nikon and Canon. The principles are the same for both manufactures. The difference is in the menu navigation and function names. The third link show a varrity of devices and prices for calibration, but instead of investing in higher cost equipment, I use a device that costs under $3 that the last link will take you to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72MQnHPu-04

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2tKs1zQ58E

https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=autofocus+calibration&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=233485091757&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16229452222046489304&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031054&hvtargid=kwd-24718372732&ref=pd_sl_212imlhvbu_b

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1312.R1.TR11.TRC2.A0.H0.Xcam.TRS1&_nkw=camera+lens+calibration&_sacat=0

Haydon

Thanks for your suggestion. I have that covered. I understand micro adjustment and copy variation. I also understand how some areas seemingly go soft within the focal travel, lack of corner sharpness and the abundance of pincushion at the lower end. There are limitations to the optical formula in higher magnification lenses and they become abundantly more evident on a full frame. Some have better copies even with micro adjustment and some justify their purchases by denying there are problems. I am one that is adamant about image quality and wasn't happy through the focal length. Your experience may be different.

JBruce Loc: Northern MN

[quote=DesRose]Regarding the Nikon FX 28-300mm zoom lens we settled opinions once and for all (for the haters out there) that this lens IS viable as a good walk around/travel lens.

I quote the above portion of the OP as probably being the most relevant portion. I agree that almost any 28-300 lens, or it's equivalent is a great walk around lens. I am currently using an Olympus 14-150 (28-300 FF eqiv.) weatherproof, light weight, sharp, and I love the possibilities that it provides--just sayin'. John

kskarma Loc: Topeka, KS

Let me add my 2 pixels worth to this discussion about the sharpness of the Nikon 28-300mm. The attached photo was, of course, shot with this lens....and handheld as well. There are actually two 'focus stacked' images here, for the first one I focused on the saguaro on the right side, then changed the focus to the larger saguaro in the middle of the frame. These were then processed with Combine ZP to form the final image. Some very minor tweaking was done in Photoshop...cropped slightly, etc.

Be sure to take a look at the full sized image ("original") and examine the 'sharpness'...(no pun intended, even though it would have been a good one!)...of the spines on the right hand plant....and then have a look at the cactus in the center of the photo.... I know we all have different standards, but for the work I do, this lens has really filled my needs for about 85% of all of my shots and the impact of this shot has been well received by many others. The wonderful light at day's end only adds to the scenic quality...IMHO.

(Download)

kskarma Loc: Topeka, KS

delete

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That was a fun time. I'm looking forward to getting together again. Keep in mind though, I grant anyone the ability to have an opinion. What works for some may not work for everyone. If one has an opinion at least base it on personal experience or dedicated research. However, just because <fill in your favorite reviewer or lab> says something, may or may not be something on which to hang your hat.

As for humor, I'll probably poke more fun at myself than anyone else. It is a good thing to share a good laugh with good friends. Share is far better than at someone else's expense.
--Bob