Nikon 28-300 VS Nikon 35mm 1.8G - Pick ONE For Travel

[StandingBear1983]

What lens would you bring with you for traveling on treks and other walkabouts if you could choose ONE lens?

I love my 35mm 1.8G, its light, its fast, its sharp, its great for low light and i don't mind walking to targets i shoot instead of zooming in and if i can i rather do so instead of zooming, so no problems there.

The problem starts when i want to shoot something i can't reach by foot, wild life for example. then again, I'm not a HUGE FAN of wildlife that i will use it ALL of the time...i guess some of the time I'll take a shot here and a shot there...if i see something special...what i want to say is that I'm not sure I'll use the 300mm length THAT often to Justify getting the 28-300.

one more thing to consider, when i don't travel i shoot a lot of surfing with my bridge camera that reaches to 426mm, so at home i COULD use the range of the 28-300 more often when I'm not traveling.

The 28-300 will get me those shots of wildlife and other far off pictures i won't be able to take with the 35mm, i will have more versatility of options, more compositional shots, more angles to play with and this lens is "future proof" when i decide to go FF in a year or so when the D600 comes out, i don't have money to buy the 2.8 lenses YET unfortunately.

though the 28-300 "lacks" all the other pleasures of the 35mm, its not that fast, not that sharp, its relatively heavy, and its not so good for low light, it has a bit of distortion and chromatic aberration which the 35mm doesn't have.

I would appreciate your opinions very much, thanks in advance :thumbup:.

 

[digital flower]

I'd probably take the prime because that is what I am used to.

 

[SCraig]

If I had to pick one lens to do everything there is no way on Earth it would ever be a short prime. Give me the most versatile zoom I can lay my hands on.

 

[ZapoTeX]

When I decide to use my 50 F/1.8, I enjoy it hugely. However, if I had to pick one lens only for a trip, it would be a universal zoom (18-200 rather than 28-300, given that I have an APS-C camera). The reason is simple: it can do, at a lower quality and with less control on DOF, everything that the prime can.

Ciao!

 

[KmH]

The 28-300 mm can be set to 35 mm.

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras has both distortion and CA.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX review: Digital Photography Review

Distortion is reasonably well-controlled at 1.1% barrel - about par for the course for standard primes, although rather higher than the exceptionally well-corrected Nikon 50mm F1.8D. It is high enough to occasionally become visible in real-world shots, but in context much lower than that seen at the wide end of most kit zooms

Conclusion - Cons

• Slightly soft and low in contrast wide open
• Lateral chromatic aberration somewhat higher than traditional 50mm 'standard' primes
• Prone to purple fringing and bokeh chromatic aberration, most visible at large apertures

For walkaround I used 2 lenses - the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

and the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

 

[StandingBear1983]

Thank you everybody. I'm leaning on getting the 28-300. at almost the same price here for the 18-200 its much more worth for me to get a FX lens and not a DX one, as i said i'm getting the D600 when it comes out in spetember (or later).

Keith I don't have a motor in my D5100, so i can't use those lenses...and its true what you say, the 35mm 1.8G isn't perfect but it may be better then the superzoom lens, i didn't say its perfect.

 

[cgipson1]

I have the 28-300 (and love it).... and have recommended it to several other people who now love it also (PM Lizardking)!

It is sharp and fast at focusing... far better than any kit lens.. and almost as good as my "Expensive" Lenses! It does have some CA in some conditions... and will hunt a little bit in low light. But for the versatility of a single lens.. it is excellent!

I have several shots in my gallery (and on Flickr) that I shot with this lens.... like this one!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/photos/data/500/Kili-Face-closeup-hf.jpg


Looks sharp to me... what do you think?

Here is another from the 28-300

[/url]
Old Seagull by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

 

[JSER]

Have you used the Nikkor 28-300 VR, if that is the one you mean, my son has it and it never ever leavs the camera, it is a superb not ceap lens

 

[StandingBear1983]

cgipson1 - i think you bought me with that shot :thumbup:, GOOD one, no editing in photoshop or lightroom?, anyhow, if i can take pictures like that, i'll be a happy man

JSER - I know its not cheap, and i think it will be in use for me for a long time, also when i go on to FX, so i guess i'll be getting the 28-300 :hug::

 

[cgipson1]

cgipson1 - i think you bought me with that shot :thumbup:, GOOD one, no editing in photoshop or lightroom?, anyhow, if i can take pictures like that, i'll be a happy man

JSER - I know its not cheap, and i think it will be in use for me for a long time, also when i go on to FX, so i guess i'll be getting the 28-300 :hug::

There is always editing.. at least some sharpening, and usually a minor brightness / contrast change. But that would have been all! That was shot with flash (the cat)... the Seagull was outdoors bright sun.

 

[Derrel]

Ken Rockwell (no laughing or jeering!) has a review of the 28-300 VR lens, and a bunch of fairly large, downloadable landscape samples shot with that lens and the Nikon D3s. The images look MUCH better than I had anticipated they would look. One needs to keep in mind that the 28-300 is in the "one thousand dollar" lens category. A lot of people as a matter of habit, dismiss wide-range zooms as being garbage, but the truth I have found is this: the best predictor of lens quality is not focal length specifications, but rather the retail price point that a specific lens was designed to sell for upon its initial release. A lens that is designed to be made and sold cheaply and in very high volumes, will often have some compromises made, and those will affect image quality. A lens that is designed to sell at a fairly "steep" price, and made in smaller quantities, can be designed with fewer compromises, and with a simply "better optical design". The 28-300 VR falls into the latter category.

 

[Derrel]

Here are some startling web pages. On the second page, just look at the comparison of the 28-300 VR at the edges of the frame, against the state of the art 85mm f/1.4 AF-S G, both at f/5.6. Or compare it against the 50mm 1.4 AF-S G prime. Compare its edge-of-the-frame performance versus that of the 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor at 28mm...the 28-300 VR has ED glass and aspherical element design.

Nikon 28-300mm VR


Nikon 28-300mm VR

 

[StandingBear1983]

Thats reassuring Charlie, thanks for the help and your nice photos

Derrel - Yep, i have read that review and a couple of others before deciding on the 28-300, after checking out also the DX 18-200, 55-200, 55-300, and there seems to be a big difference between those DX lenses and the 28-300 FX lens.