Then it must have changed since I was a child and lived in the Mojave desert only a short distance from DV. Sidewinders, and Horned Toads, and an occasional Jackrabbit were rare finds, and the Coyotes raided our garbage cans stealthily in the predawn hours. Out in the Coso range you could find wild Burros, but you had to be on horseback to see them. The desert is a very quiet place. Most critters are nocturnal because it is so hot during the day except in winter. And most are small, shy and camoflaged. If you are a dedicated wildlife photographer, know when and where to find specific critters, and have lots of time and patience, you might be able to get photos of desert wildlife, but the rocks are a heck of a lot easier to shoot. Lugging a big old tele in hopes of capturing these shy retiring critters would lead mostly to a sore neck and a lot of disappointment, at least in the Mojave Desert I am familiar with.

Yes, I am hard on that lens - because it isn't as sharp as what I typically use. If you haven't used a 300mm F2.8 or even a 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4 TC - you have no real basis for comparison. I much prefer my old Sigma 100-300 F4 lens - which is tack sharp, at F5.6 and blows away the 28-300 over the same focal length range. When it was released there was no high mp DSLR - we had a D3S, D700, D300. There was a 24 mp D3X, but it was primarily a studio camera, due to it's slow handling. The 28-300 looks "ok" when used with a 12 mp crop camera, like a D300. But buying something like that for a D810? Probably not the best way to spend money.

I don't make stuff like this up -

https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6g-ed-vr

The first comment in the reader responses is precious, "Another lens in my arsenal, practical but lot’s of distortion and visible chromatic aberration. I use my 24-70 F2.8 a lot more, picture quality is superior I think, especially when using a D800 which really shine with the best lenses." It seems I am not alone.

Actually, Gene, I have a 70-200 f2.8. Not the current model, but the previous model. Based on what you've posted in the past, I had expected a great leap in quality over the 28-300 as I expected. I was greatly disappointed and haven't used it much since. I even checked it on my tripod and using various settings. The one thing that I have not done yet is fine tune it.



Oh, here is another one:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42030713

And the author couldn't be clearer when he writes "Sharpness is a common question, and we all know you need the best glass to make the D800 really shine. Lets get this out of the way, the 28-300 isn't a really sharp lens and the corners are mush. There is also a lot of coma." He goes on to say, ". . . it struggles in low-light. Its probably the only lens that I have that with the D800, it hunts and sometimes just gives up. Still, I was able to get some decent results when the light is decent."

Now this guy is ok with using it as a travel camera, and for not critical situations, where convenience takes precedence to the need for image quality. And that says that is it not a good first choice.

This guy also had very mixed feelings:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/04/26/review-a-controversial-lens-the-nikon-afs-28-3003-5-5-6-vr-g/

"Mine isn’t so hot at 28mm – in fact, it’s downright crappy (flare, aberrations, lack of sharpness and contrast) at 28mm until f5.6; curiously, you can manual focus it to a sharper image – however, using that AF-fine tune calibration throws out every other focal length. From 35mm to 200mm or so, this lens is right up there with the rest of them – it’s sharp, contrasty, and has plenty of bite. It’s lacking micro contrast though, which I suspect is a consequence of having a huge number of elements and air-glass interfaces: a little bit of contrast is lost at each one, no matter how good your coating is. Above 200mm, things soften to the point that 300mm isn’t that good wide open, and requires f8 to be useable."

His experience was a little different than mine when using a D700 and a D800 - he actually found it was a little better, stopped down, on a D800. I tried 3 different copies and saw just the opposite. He also is right on the money with AF-Fine Tune - something that I have been saying for years - it is not a good solution since fixing one focal length/distance affects all other focal lengths and distances - but this the subject of another thread.

Last, but not least, there are these two reviews:

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-ED-VR-mounted-on-Nikon-D810__963

It's really hard to come away after reading these evaluations and testing three different copies of this lens on 3 bodies - D300, D700, D800) thinking it is anything but mediocre at best - with all sorts of caveats.

At $950, it's a lot of money to spend on a so-so lens. No bias here, just facts and personal experience.

Your results are polar opposite of mine, the caveat being I have the newer 70/200 2.8FL.
I usually shoot for my business (wedding flowers), and I find it sharp, but with pleasing bokeh as I mostly shoot wide open.
I find my 70/200 superior to my 28/300 in every way, other than the zoom range. One unanticipated difference is focus speed. Every time I've had the 70/200 on my camera and switch to another lens, I sigh when I try to take the next shot and have to wait for the lens to acquire focus.
I will say that I have slightly better luck with the 28/300 on my d7100 than my d750. Could be the smaller sensor, or perhaps the lack of the anti-alias filter. I am just not sure. But it does not impress me, particularly with sharpness.
It's been on my mind to sell/trade it and get a longer zoom to compliment the 70/200.

Are you listening, Santa???