Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S NIKKOR VR

[mark4583]

Whats your opinions on this lens, Decent?

 

[JTPhotography]

Typical super zoom, convenient focal range at the expense of image quality. But it depends on what you are using it for.

 

[mark4583]

Just a walking around lens that's not to bulky and heavy with decent optics , using it on a D750

 

[480sparky]

Never had an IQ problem with mine (coupled with D600). It's my go-to lens for all-around shooting. I found it better than the 24-120 I had been using.

 

[Derrel]

Check the Ken Rockwell review of the lens. You might be surprised.

 

[JTPhotography]

Check the Ken Rockwell review of the lens. You might be surprised.

Good point. It’s a great example of how lenses and reviews are really all about what you do and how picky you are about quality. I like KR and agree with most of what he says. He shoots jpeg and processes in camera. He claims that this lens is super sharp. For me, I prefer the technical reviews. Optical Limits rates it extremely low in terms of sharpness.

 

[Derrel]

Check the Ken Rockwell review of the lens. You might be surprised.

Good point. It’s a great example of how lenses and reviews are really all about what you do and how picky you are about quality. I like KR and agree with most of what he says. He shoots jpeg and processes in camera. He claims that this lens is super sharp. For me, I prefer the technical reviews. Optical Limits rates it extremely low in terms of sharpness.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, to a point, but there's another side to technical image quality versus usability and ease of carrying. The Lensbaby is "extremely low" in sharpness. I see some good photos made with this "low sharpness" lens. Of course, we need to keep in mind, this is a superzoom, not a $6,999 prime 300mm tele and not a $1,999 Zeiss wide-angle. Compared to the $4,000 Coastal Optics 60mm, the Nikkor 60mm AF-D macro lens could be considered just "average" by the type of standards Optical Limits and other testing outfits might use, but to most people, the 60 Micro-Nikkor is plenty sharp, despite its optical flaws.

Nikon 28-300mm VR Review - Photography Life

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR | Hands-on Review

Horses for courses. Not everybody needs maximum sharpness. if we did, we would never use a zoom lens, and would carry separate 28mm,35mm,50mm,85mm,105mm,135mm,180mm,200mm,and 300mm lenses. I did, in the 1980's; a kit like that and two bodies with motor drives and batteries, in Nikon manual focus, weighs in at well over 24.5 pounds...and that is minus the 180mm lens and the 300mm lens...

If the OP wants a single-lens solution for full-frame, there's a roughly 20 pound weight savings by going with the superzoom, as opposed to nine prime lenses.

 

[480sparky]

.......... Not everybody needs maximum sharpness. if we did, we would never use a zoom lens, and would carry separate 28mm,35mm,50mm,85mm,105mm,135mm,180mm,200mm,and 300mm lenses. I did, in the 1980's; ..........

I did the same thing. 17mm fisheye, 20, 28, 50, 50 macro, 120, 300 and 500. I had two zooms but only used them for snapshots.

 

[ac12]

I view a super-zoom as a convenience lens, great for a 2-lens travel kith with a 35 or 50 f/1.8 lens as the low light indoor companion lens.
That would be great for travel, a single smallish/light lens, rather than a bag full of primes or 3 pro zooms.

The which end is more important to you, and how important is the zoom range?
@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

 

[Derrel]

I view a super-zoom as a convenience lens, great for a 2-lens travel kith with a 35 or 50 f/1.8 lens as the low light indoor companion lens.
That would be great for travel, a single smallish/light lens, rather than a bag full of primes or 3 pro zooms.

The which end is more important to you, and how important is the zoom range?
@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

I like the longer focal lengths more than shorter ones, so for me, a 70-200 or a 70-300 zoom is an "essential", and then I can get by with a smaller,lighter pair of wide-angle primes, like a 24mm and a 35mm, which is "my" favorite pair of wide-angle lengths. Or, I can carry the tele-zoom, and just one short lens, like a 24mm or a 35mm, and call that pair good. Most wide-angle primes tend to be a bit better-performing than "most" superzooms or low-cost zooms, but the newer, higher-dollar wide-angle zooms (like 16-35mm or 14-24,etc.) can by most metrics, out-perform the older wide-angle primes that are small,and light, and affordable. Specific lenses of course, can throw a monkey wrench into these generalizations. Newer, high-dollar wide-angle prime lenses from Nikon and Zeiss, and newer, higher-cost wide-angle zoom lenses, can out-perform older lenses.It's tough to generalize, except to say that ,"The good lenses perform better than the bad lenses". LOL.

I dunno...there is no one, right answer for everybody or for every shooting need and situation...there's ultimate sharpness...price...weight...focal length flexibility...speed and fluidity of operation and shooting...what one person thinks is ideal might not be the ideal for another person...I see having the right focal length as being the key to being able to make pictures easily and rapidly and fluidly when out and about...but sometimes, using the absolute-best tool for the job makes more sense...if you need a 300mm, then the 300mm f/4 primes are very good, and easy to carry...if you need a low-light, high-speed lens, an 85mm f/1.8 is easy to carry and is wide-aperture and allows you to crop-in later on na crisp frame shot at high shutter speed and decent f/stop...if you wanna shoot macro, a macro lens is the right tool...if you wanna go light, a 24/50/85 trio makes sense...if you want to go on vacation or spend a weekend and grab shots to remember things, consider that most lenses, at f/8, are "decent", and that many lenses that cost $50-$300 used and $1700 zooms have been mostly equalized due to diffraction effects when shot at f/8.

 

[480sparky]

@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

I really do like it, but I'd rather have a 24-250. Alas... Nikon doesn't listen to me.

 

[ac12]

@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

I really do like it, but I'd rather have a 24-250. Alas... Nikon doesn't listen to me.

f/4 please

 

[480sparky]

@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

I really do like it, but I'd rather have a 24-250. Alas... Nikon doesn't listen to me.

f/4 please

Pfft. F/1.4, please.

 

[ac12]

@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

I really do like it, but I'd rather have a 24-250. Alas... Nikon doesn't listen to me.

f/4 please

Pfft. F/1.4, please.

I LIKE it, but I don't think I can carry it.

 

[480sparky]

@480sparky likes his 28-300 over the 24-120. For me, I want the wide end more than the long end so I would choose the wider but shorter range 24-120. If you need the reach, the 28-300 beats the 24-120.

I really do like it, but I'd rather have a 24-250. Alas... Nikon doesn't listen to me.

f/4 please

Pfft. F/1.4, please.

I LIKE it, but I don't think I can carry it.

This is the new pancake version. Uses 49mm filters. Not the old style with 55mm.