Lens dilemma: to the 300mm range

[molested_cow]

I am currently looking to update my 70-300mm range. Right now I have the AF ED version, which is rather terrible by D700's standard.

I was initially looking at the 70-300mm VR and was then being recommended the 28-300mm instead. Initially, I was only thinking about the 70-300 range, but realized that now it's much more than that.
Comparing the 70-300mm range, the 70-300mm VR doesn't seem to have noticeable advantage over the 28-300. Ok that's good!.

Then I am looking at my current lens.

F1.4 50mm
F2.8 20mm
F2.8 35-70mm
F2.8 105mm

I don't bring 50 and 35-70 together. It's either or. I am happy with both lens. I take the 50mm for street photography, but will take the 35-70 for events. If I get the 28-300, for event wise, I will just bring the 20mm and 28-300mm. Two lens does it all.

If I am traveling(may run into all sorts of shots), I will take 20, 50, 105 and 28-300. Weight wise I am not saving any in this set up.

Essentially, it will replace both my 35-70 and 70-300.
The 28-300 is a lot more expensive than the 70-300, but if it really is as advertised and that it makes sense for me, then that's not a problem.
The only thing I may mind is the loss of IQ in the sub 70mm range compared to the F2.8 35-70. If it's not THAT bad, I wouldn't mind either.

So what do you guys think? Is the 28-300mm VR for me?

 

[Patrice]

You have some reasonable fast lenses now, so you might find the variable minimum aperture a bit slow, especially the 5.6 at 300 and once you close down a stop or two this thing gets pretty slow at f/8 f/11. There are some good f/4 and second hand f/2.8 available as 300 primes.

 

[MLeeK]

I am not sold on any all in one lens. The ratings do look pretty OK on that one. It's definitely got some vignetting and distortion going on.
When you say events and then add that aperture in it I feel like it's not going to add up, but I am not sure what you are needing for events. I know for me at f/5.6 that's probably not acceptable.
I'd have to say: Ask Derrel on this one. He's much better with Nikon choices.

 

[tirediron]

IMO, you're wasting most of your D700s talent putting a lens like that on it. Why not look at the 70-200 2.8 or 80-200 2.8? If you need a bit more reach on occasion, add a TC to the mix.

 

[Derrel]

12 megapixels on 24x36mm does not stress a lens very much. It's actually a very,very "sweet spot" that makes even average lenses look decent. Have you seen the full-resolution shots made with the 28-300 VR here??? California's Eastern Sierra, 04 and 05 October 2010

 

[molested_cow]

Derrel, yes I've seen those, and many direct comparison shots between the 70-300 and 28-300, but mostly at the 300mm end.
Quality wise, most say it's equal or better than the 70-300.

To answer some of the questions, I don't do any of these for money, pure hobby, so spending more than a thousand on a lens that I don't use all the time doesn't make sense for me. That's why I am looking at this rather than a F2.8 70-200mm. It's also too big and heavy for my bag.

Event wise, that's a good question. It can be outdoor school sport events, which the 28-300 should do fine. It can also be indoor lectures, which the 28-300 won't survive. For example, this last Friday was the school's sport meet. We had an indoor speech for the parents before the outdoor events started, then moved back to indoor for some lunch then back outdoor again. I had the F2.8 35-70 on the whole time and had no problem getting still and action shots. I was lucky cus these were little elementary school kids. I could stand right at the finish line waiting for them to come close without worrying about they knocking me over if they do run into me, in which case I will just bear hug them. However, if I can't get close enough, I will have to rely on a telephoto.

On other occasions, like traveling, telephoto can be used for just about anything. Landscape to wildlife(not the serious type) to spying. Sometimes I come across a nice road and want to shoot my scooter or car(if I get one). A telephoto lens at the far end gives the right kind of distortion. In this case, a tripod may be used.

So it's not going to be for one type of use. I am just worried that I may get too disappointed at the 35-70 end with this lens spending that much money. In fact, I got my F2.8 35-70 used for about $300 only, which is funny because if you add $300 to the price of a new 70-300VR, you are now in the 28-300 range.

 

[MLeeK]

Derrel, yes I've seen those, and many direct comparison shots between the 70-300 and 28-300, but mostly at the 300mm end.
Quality wise, most say it's equal or better than the 70-300.

To answer some of the questions, I don't do any of these for money, pure hobby, so spending more than a thousand on a lens that I don't use all the time doesn't make sense for me. That's why I am looking at this rather than a F2.8 70-200mm. It's also too big and heavy for my bag.

Event wise, that's a good question. It can be outdoor school sport events, which the 28-300 should do fine. It can also be indoor lectures, which the 28-300 won't survive. For example, this last Friday was the school's sport meet. We had an indoor speech for the parents before the outdoor events started, then moved back to indoor for some lunch then back outdoor again. I had the F2.8 35-70 on the whole time and had no problem getting still and action shots. I was lucky cus these were little elementary school kids. I could stand right at the finish line waiting for them to come close without worrying about they knocking me over if they do run into me, in which case I will just bear hug them. However, if I can't get close enough, I will have to rely on a telephoto.

On other occasions, like traveling, telephoto can be used for just about anything. Landscape to wildlife(not the serious type) to spying. Sometimes I come across a nice road and want to shoot my scooter or car(if I get one). A telephoto lens at the far end gives the right kind of distortion. In this case, a tripod may be used.

So it's not going to be for one type of use. I am just worried that I may get too disappointed at the 35-70 end with this lens spending that much money. In fact, I got my F2.8 35-70 used for about $300 only, which is funny because if you add $300 to the price of a new 70-300VR, you are now in the 28-300 range.

What about the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8? It's an incredibly sharp lens and can be found used around the $550 mark and I think new around the $700 mark.
I have one and I am constantly amazed by the sharpness of that lens.

 

[Derrel]

Everything is a compromise. Convenience versus size,weight,and price. Range versus optical performance. Being "set and ready to roll" with one lens, versus needing two, or three lenses. I dunno...whatever you want...

 

[orb9220]

Everything is a compromise. Convenience versus size,weight,and price. Range versus optical performance. Being "set and ready to roll" with one lens, versus needing two, or three lenses. I dunno...whatever you want...

Yep don't see a one lens ready to rock for all situations kind of thing. Mostly giving up speed and getting the shot in lower light situations that don't necessarily mean indoors only. Would rather have the heavier faster 2 lens solution in getting the shots and a lightweight prime just in case.

As that was the reason for being there in the first place to get the shot. And don't want to have to flip a coin every time i go out on location wondering if the lighting will be sufficient for my setup. Slower variable all in one means more times the coin will come up tails instead of heads.
.

 

[molested_cow]

Yes it's a compromise, but also a balance. I am trying to figure out what the best balance will be.

Only if I can do some test shots with the actual lens.

 

[panblue]

The only thing I may mind is the loss of IQ in the sub 70mm range compared to the F2.8 35-70.

So what do you guys think? Is the 28-300mm VR for me?

Sounds good but how bad is the IQ. Do you have any review data?

 

[panblue]

Would rather have the heavier faster 2 lens solution in getting the shots and a lightweight prime just in case.

:thumbup:
Or the 20 & 50 plus a 28-300..should cover you OK

 

[panblue]

What about the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8? It's an incredibly sharp lens and can be found used around the $550 mark and I think new around the $700 mark.
I have one and I am constantly amazed by the sharpness of that lens.

That plus the 20 and also a decent t/c might be a nice kit

 

[FTWingRiders]

Would rather have the heavier faster 2 lens solution in getting the shots and a lightweight prime just in case.

:thumbup:
Or the 20 & 50 plus a 28-300..should cover you OK

I just do this as a hobby, mostly landscape/outdoors/family stuff, but I love my 28-300, it's much sharper and more versatile than I expected. Great all around lens thats on my camera most of the time. I was contemplating over it for a while, then I found it on CL for $500 new in box, I grabbed it. Between that, my 12-24 f/4, 50 1.4 and 35 1.8 I feel I'm pretty well covered for what I do.

 

[JDFlood]

I have all those lenses you have been discussing. I do landscape, street and architecture. I love my 28-300mm. It is a hobby for me. I consider each photo op before I go, and decide the variety and lighting conditions. If it is at night, downtown Portland, I am going to choose primes, a walk Along the river, and say I don't mind draped with ThinkTank, primes and a zoom. But maybe backpacking, or a hike, or visit a ghost town and I don't want to worry about my lens changing... Then 28-300 is it. If you didn't have primes, you wouldn't really have much to best it. It is a great lens and the IQ is very good. If you don't want to embarrass your wife while on a walk in town ( well, actually my Leica X2), but the 28-300.

By the way, given what you have, after the 28-300 look at the 14-24mm it is unreal. Then jus add primes. If I did it all over again I would only buy two zooms, 28-300 and 14-24. The rest primes. I think primes force you to be a better photographer. Zooms make you lazy. I was in the parking lot the other night, and saw two trees striped of leaves lite in a parking lot light, I had my zoom and took the shot from 200 ft... Then I thought about it,"what am I doing? It is dark, I have a narrow depth of field... And I zoomed to 200mm? What kind of idiot does that? So, I walked across the parking lot got back to 28mm adjusted the iso and got a good shoot.

I think it was Ming Thein pointed out, you should use lens focal length to choose your depth of field, not distance to the subject! Zooms make you lazy, zooms make you miss the great shot. (Obviously, sports and wildlife, and some situations... Distance is why you choose a tele... But in general). When I remember what Ming said, I am a much better photographer... When I don't I get some good snapshots. JD