Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR - thought?

[JenLavazza]

I'm looking to get a new lens. When I sold my camera and upgraded to FX I sold all my DX lenses and now only have one...50mm 1.4...which I LOVE, but I'd like to get a zoom lens to use at my childrens plays, dance recitals, etc.... And perhaps to use for outdoors sessions with kids that like to run!! I won't have to be right on top of them the whole time! lol

So.....anyone have experiance or knowledge on the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR? Or recommendations for another lens around the same price?Thanks!!

 

[sobolik]

Awesome choice for an FX camera.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

 

[Light Artisan]

If you ever used the 18-200 on DX, that's about what you're going to get with this one on full frame. People seem happy with it for what it is, though I have no personal experience with it.

 

[KmH]

f/3.5-5.6 is pretty slow for indoor plays and dance recitals. Outside getting shallow DOF will be an issue, if the subject to sensor distance is well beyond the close focus capability of the lens.

Be sure you'll have enough ISO from your FX body to get sufficient shutter speed indoors.

Of course if you use strobed light ...........

 

[JenLavazza]

Any suggestions for a better lens? That's not WAAAAAY over $1,000. I'd be willing to pay around $1300 or so. Also willing to buy non-Nikon brand lenses.

 

[JenLavazza]

What about the 70-200 2.8G IF VR? Looks like used they're not too much more than what I was wanting to spend.....Is it worth it?

 

[sobolik]

What about the 70-200 2.8G IF VR? Looks like used they're not too much more than what I was wanting to spend.....Is it worth it?

NO! The vast majority will try to convince you otherwise. It is like insisting that a Corvette is "better" and what you "need" to drive your kids back and forth to these events so you can take photos of them. 70mm is a lousy focal length to be caught with for surprise shots. I'd much rather have 28-300 at a moments notice. If it is too dark for people/motion photography then it is too dark for getting quality photos anyway.

 

[gsgary]

What about the 70-200 2.8G IF VR? Looks like used they're not too much more than what I was wanting to spend.....Is it worth it?

NO! The vast majority will try to convince you otherwise. It is like insisting that a Corvette is "better" and what you "need" to drive your kids back and forth to these events so you can take photos of them. 70mm is a lousy focal length to be caught with for surprise shots. I'd much rather have 28-300 at a moments notice. If it is too dark for people/motion photography then it is too dark for getting quality photos anyway.

That's because you know **** all about low light photography, if the 70-200F2.8 is in your budget it will blow the 28-300 out of the water, and for outside shots it will also be fantastic it will be perfect for Kid photography

 

[JenLavazza]

I'm just not big on "collecting" equipment, so if I need to spend more to get what I want/need than so be it. I can't think of any other scenario I would need a different lens for than my 50mm 1.4 and a good zoom lens....for what I shoot anyway.

 

[Light Artisan]

I'd get the 70-200 VR if you can swing it, or the 80-200 (no VR). VR is only good for objects that are still, so you could spend about $800-$1000 on an 80-200 (2 ring, newest one) or about $1200-$1300 on a used 70-200.

People like sobolik will try and convince people they can do everything with a kit lens and get good quality photos, it's simply not always the case and they have yet to show photos proving their point.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno...the slow aperture values these wide-ratio zoom lenses force you into make it really a PITA whenever the light level is lower...and that depends a lot on where you live...like, in Seattle for example, it is SO FRICKIN DARK outside much of the year that one finds ISO 1,000 is about the starting territory for kid pics...if you live in Florida or Southern California or someplace like that, where it can be 23 degrees Centigrade on a January afternoon, with blue skies and bright sun...and the light is just so,so much brighter, being stuck at f/5.6 outdoors is not such a big hassle...and I have no idea where SmallTown USA is...

I dunno...I have the forerunner to this lens, the Nikkor 28-200mm G-series, which was mentioned in the Ken Rockwell article on the 28-300. It *is* pretty handy to have such a wide ranging lens for family snaps outdoors--in the "good weather months", but as soon as the light level drops a bit, that lens becomes a liability. What's odd is how surprisingly sharp Nikon can make these wide-range zooms these days...the optical quality, sharpness at least, is pretty surprising from a good design; this new Nikkor 28-300mm lens is a LOT more-expensive than say the Tamron 28-300, which I owned and which I migrated along on its way...that lens was less than half the cost of this new Nikon, and probably about half as good optically, if even that good...

Still...I see these wide-range lenses as being compromises, always forcing me to jack up the ISO, and worrying about motion blurring.

 

[JenLavazza]

Hmmmm, I didn't think about that. 95% of what I'd be using it for would be moving objects...some FAST moving objects. So, would I need to use a tripod if I bought the non-VR?

 

[Light Artisan]

Tripod comes in handy, though I rarely use one myself as they become more of a burden to me than useful. If you don't want blur, chances are you'll have a high enough shutter speed to stop motion anyway - which means handheld shouldn't be an issue at 1/250th or faster especially.

In really bad school lighting I can be at f/2.8, 1/120th or so at ISO 1600 and doing OK for dance (some motion blur in the hands, feet). I can't even imagine using f/5.6 in those conditions.


"childrens plays, dance recitals, etc...."

Reason enough right there to get something faster if you can afford it. Those events don't happen forever, might as well capture them the best you can.

 

[JenLavazza]

LOL...Smalltown USA would be south of Chicago So, it's about 50/50 here. I'd be photographing indoor events though which I'm sure would have crappy lighting conditions. I guess that's why I'm looking at lower aperture options. I shoot with a Nikon D700 and can turn the ISO up a good degree without getting much noise, so that helps a ton (which is why I splurged on it), but if I can get a good "lower light" zoom to pair with it that would be great!

 

[Derrel]

Well...set up a camera and a lens to f/5.6 and set the ISO to 800...then take the camera/lens combo and put it in APerture Priority automatic, and go around and see what kind of shutter speeds that f/stop will deliver...

I think I'd rather go with a Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8~4 lens (around $699 new) and ALSO have an 85mm/1.8 AF-D for low-light work indoors on the plays and recitals and such. You have a full-frame body, so...that means there's a whole slew of decent zoom lenses available for the kid work...

Like Light Artisan is saying above "childrens plays, dance recitals,etc..." that kind of stuff is best photographed with a FAST lens, that can focus fast, and which will allow you to get good shots from a distance of 25-60 feet back. Being stuck at f/5.6 at say 100mm on a wide-range zoom is...potentially disastrous. yeah, I figured you had a D700 FX Nikon--so its higher ISO capabilities can leverage a slower aperture lens, but still...f/5.6 is slooooow, compared against say a 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm 1.8 lens...the D700 will also leverage the faster glass as well, since a rising tide floats all boats. Still--try the f/5.6 thing--go around and literally see how limiting that is in these wintery months.