Best lens ever

He suggested that? I know KR is kind of a flake... but.
I've actually never read his site, because he has a bit of a reputation.

After reading that, all I can say is that he doesn't have enough of a reputation! We should have a sticky tread warning n00bs not to take him seriously... :)
Ken Rockwell - constant proof that telling newbies to "google it" does not always result in them finding the info we expect them to find ;)

His articles are mostly ok - provided you're not new and can separate the fact from opinion and the overarching fact that many of his points of advice are only relevant to his own style and method of shooting.
I was thinking the classic Nikkor 300mm f2 ED-IF!
He's ok :D Can't take his word for anything but at least he's entertaining.
I though the best lens Nikon made was the 70-200 2.8 G etc, etc., etc.
I thought for the longest time after getting my camera that I was supposed to have the white balance set to "cloudy" for EVERYTHING because I read that on one of Ken Rockwell's pages.
This 28-300 really does replace every other wide, normal, tele, macro and zoom.
The Nikon 28-300mm VR is sharp at all settings.
Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.
Photos that are sharp all over are usually amateur attempts, which glaringly show too much detail for many unrelated, confusing and distracting elements.
Focus scales are a throwback to the 1930s when cameras were focused by guessing or measuring the distance, and then setting it on the scale. This went out of style in by the 1950s, when the scale served as a computer for landscape photographers.
I like the plastic mount. It slides on and off my cameras much more smoothly and easily than my metal-mount lenses.
On my Nikons, I use Professional mode, the "P" setting, so the flash only goes on or off as I tell it. Other modes work, too, but you might have the camera forcing the flash on or off by itself, or have the camera run out of shutter and aperture options. In Pro (P) mode, the camera does whatever it needs to to give the best shot it can.

Most Nikons since the 1990s have done this more or less perfectly, and today's DSLRs are even better.

**** this guy.
Interestingly, about three nights ago I happened to have browsed his 28-300VR gallery, and downloaded each and every one of the large samples, which were all made on the Nikon D3s, a 12 MP, full-frame aka "FX" body in Nikon-speak. The image quality of the 28-300 VR lens was surprisingly high on distant landscape shots. The quality of the lens seems quite high, based on the images I looked at. This was originally an over-$1,000 lens, and it's currently right at $940 or so with USA warranty, and it is only f/5.6 at the 300mm end, so it is not overly huge, and it's not wide-aperture, so the design doesn't have to be super-duper sophisticated.

I'll tell you what: if somebody posted those images stripped of EXIF and said ALL of those landscapes had been shot with a 70-200 f/2.8-II, 99.5% of people who viewed it would believe it without reservation.

Ken Rockwell might be, well, Ken Rockwell, but Nikon is a lens-making company with some of the best lens designers in the business. Ken Rockwell did not make the lens. His review of it doesn't make the lens bad. One really ought to go, and download all the sample photos, and then take a very critical look at them, and ONLY THEN make observations about how well the lens can perform. Otherwise, the appropriate thing to do would be to remain silent.
"It's time to dump all our other lenses in the river"

"~Lenses from Adorama take better photos than lenses from other sources" (paraphrasing because I didn't want to go back through the review)

I stopped counting (after 10) the number of times he mentions other lenses that would be better for certain situations (in this same review).

I think some just don't get his sense of humor.

Frankly, I like his style.

And I know right where that puts me in the eye of all the haters :)

He writes for the masses (not the pros or even the serious hobbyists) from a first person point of view (his own). Plain English advice on the way he does things. Granted, if you're starting out, you may not be able to take it for what it's worth.
Last edited:
I wasn't knoocking the quality of the lens, not at all...just a laugh at his "throw away all the other Nikon lenses, this is the only one you'll ever want to mount" enthusiasm. You know me, I loves me Nikon :D
hahaha... this is funny! I actually like my 28-300... it is probably the best "do-it-all" lens I have ever seen.. and all credit goes to Nikon for that. I will admit, that if I had read what KR says about it before buying it.. I probably wouldn't have bought it. When I want single lens convenience, that is what goes on the camera!

It does not focus as fast, or as accurately as my 70-200, and corners aren't as sharp at 28 as they are on my 24-70.....but the image quality is really good. And my 24-70 wont go to 300... and my 70-200 won't go to 28!

Derrell... I appreciate your objective statement about it! :)

Oh... and neither of the other lenses mentioned will do macro..... and the 28-300 does....

100% crop of a shot with the 28-300 (check out the detail on the wing)

The photo that was cropped from (not great.. I chose it just to show the detail on that wing)
Wow that wing detail is great, and without the crop you wouldn't really of payed attention to it at a glance.

Most reactions

New Topics