Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by JTPotter, Feb 18, 2020.
A 1:10 L series lens, wow.
Yeah... it was quite large and heavy too.
One of the more famous Old School Paparazzi photographers used to just rave about how great this lens was. There used to be a nature photographer on here about 10 years ago who loved his. In more recent times. Within the last 6 months or so as I recall, a member here had a fall and ruined his 35 to 350 L. I guess the lens was quite badly damaged, since he said he literally threw it away. Yes, a 10 to 1 ratio Canon L-series Zoom.
In today's world speed and getting images from the street or a photo event to the Tabloid papers or to Modern websites is of Paramount concern... before the Golden Globes TV show or the Academy Awards show has ended you can find online photos from the red carpet.
Speaking of Red Carpet Events oh, there are often 25-50 photographers in attendance
and many of them have fairly similar equipment.
There is a lot of talk about image quality especially in photography forums, but in the real world having the right focal length is often much more important than having the ultimate in the image quality. As I said earlier There is almost no difference between a $2,000 lens and a $200 zoom lens when both are stopped down to F / 8. Modern photography magazine did an article that tested a bunch of expensive pro-level f/2.8 and quite a few consumers zooms. Optically at f8 there was no difference that really popped out when people were actually judging the pictures. Of course their one takeaway was that there was no telling how long the inexpensive zoom would continue to deliver its qualityand stay in good operating form. There is indeed quite a bit of difference in build quality between the professional level F / 2.8 lenses and the cheaper consumer lenses, some of which are priced at $109. If you compare a Nikon 18- 55mm kit lens with the 17-55mm DX f/2.8, the difference in build quality and fit and finish is quite apparent.
The Nikon 28 mm to 300 mm is not a cheap lens... it is in most ways a high-grade lens, and it is designed to appeal to a photographer who understands what he or she will be getting for the money. Is it as good as having the nine prime lenses that its zoom range spans? Maybe not, but in terms of convenience it sure as heck beats carrying nine different prime lenses(28,35, 50, 85,105,135,180,200,300).
It dosen’t even need to be that badly damaged, you just need to drop it once and get one lens element inside to tilt or decenter, making the lens completely useless for pro work.
Not many want to get Nikon/Canon to fix an older lens, as it’s quite expensive to do so.
The most important part must be if you’ll ending up using it more, not if it delivers a reduced image quality, what good is a sharp lens if it just stays at home and collect dust. Sometimes portability is more important than image quality if it means you’ll actually use it. in this scenario you would need two potential more heavy lenses instead of one to cover the same range. And although these in theory would give better image quality and flexibility it comes at costs, it doesn’t sound to me that you’re willingly to pay that price.
If you want a "day carry lens," with reach for birds, but without the added weight of carrying the 200-500, then you are backed into the 28-300.
It will be a compromise; additional reach in one lens vs IQ and lens construction.
See if you can rent one for a weekend.
BTW, if you have the funds, there is a reason for having BOTH lenses in your "tool box."
If you are traveling for birds where you can only carry ONE lens, then you take the 28-300, for the reach, while still giving you a wide angle for travel photos.
If you are at home or in a scenario where you do not need the reach, or need the extra stop of speed, then you take the 24-120.
It is all about picking the best tool for the job.
I have lenses that overlap and duplicate each other, but each lens fills a specific need that the others cannot fill, or fill well.
A guy or gal can never own too many lenses.
If you are able to cover all the fields and scenarios your shooting at and own lenses that is left unused, I would make the bold claim you own to many.
There is never too many lenses
GAS assures that you will always want "just one more."
"See if you can rent one for a weekend."
Renting one,, I always forget about that!
"BTW, if you have the funds, there is a reason for having BOTH lenses in your "tool box.""
I will never give up the 200-500mm! Wish I knew how to post pic's, cause in my mind I got some beauty's!
Thanks for the reply, Looking into renting!
Separate names with a comma.