Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

  1. #1

    Default Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Has anybody tested on the Nikkor 28-300mm VR lense?
    It is a mega zoom lense, a single lense to carry around instead of few lenses....

    I would like to know if any kind soul would like to share their experience with this lense on the image quality produce...

    Still thinking whether to go for nikkor 28-300mm or nikkor 55-300mm.

    thanks..

  2. #2
    Senior Member luna_sea83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    1,294

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    28-300 on full frame is equivalent to the 18-200 on the crop sensor.

  3. #3
    Member fmeeran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    834

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    28-300mm is quite heavy.
    If you are using a DX camera (i assume, since you are considering the 55-300), the 18-200mm is a better all in one zoom as it is lighter.
    Dxxxx | 35/1.8 | 50/1.8 | Tokina 28-70 | Panny G1 | 14-45 | 25/1.7
    My Flickr

  4. #4
    Senior Member xtemujin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Singapura, Singapore
    Posts
    2,778

    Arrow Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    I've used the 18-200mm and now I'm using the 28-300mm on my D90.

    I find that the 28-300mm has better image quality compared to the 18-200mm.

    Yes, the 28-300mm is much more heavier.

    Some photos to share.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtemuji...th/5519266198/

  5. #5

    Default

    Me too absolutely confused between 18-200, 55-300, 28-300, 70-300. So far all the reviews I have read 55-300 & 70-300 lacks AF speed. 18-200 is an all-rounder but zoom creep may trouble. 28-300 is best of all in IQ but heavier and not sure if ideally suited for DX cameras.

    Please advise.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Quote Originally Posted by sandeepro View Post
    Me too absolutely confused between 18-200, 55-300, 28-300, 70-300. So far all the reviews I have read 55-300 & 70-300 lacks AF speed. 18-200 is an all-rounder but zoom creep may trouble. 28-300 is best of all in IQ but heavier and not sure if ideally suited for DX cameras.

    Please advise.
    The AFS 70-300mm is the fastest and most sharpest among the range you mentioned.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgdevilzz

    The AFS 70-300mm is the fastest and most sharpest among the range you mentioned.
    Really !! I thought it's 28-300 most fastest among those names. But isn't 28-300 and 70-300 both are for FX body? Which one should go for?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,786

    Default

    70-300 AFS is a dedicated telezoom lens as compared to the 28-300mm, which is more of the translate of 18-200mm from DX to FX. I would view them as lens for diff. purposes. If you do not want to move to FX, getting the 28-300mm is a little waste of money.
    Equipment: D800|D700|11-16|28-75|105 Micro VR|50 F1.4G|85 F1.8G
    Through the Lens of Cowseye

  9. #9
    Senior Member Big Kahuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Never use a 55-300 but have been using the 28-300 for a couple of trips liao, to me the picture quality is very good, the VR works but the distortion is quite a lot at wide, so that's the compromise that have to bear in mind. I will post some pictures later today.

  10. #10
    Senior Member ovaltinemilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sin jia Po lah
    Posts
    2,820

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    if you are not shooting wide angle, 28-300 would be a very nice zoom(~normal to long tele) for APSC format.
    ...:::..::.Nikon.::.:::..
    RGB Metering & Focusing.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    I used the 28-300 with the D700 for an 2 week overseas trip.I love that it close focuses 1.5 feet at 300mm. I love the VR II function. It may not be a pro-spec lens but i suppose it is quit well sealed. I was on a motorbike for 8 hours with the camera on my shoulder. No dust entered inside. The lens is sharp at all focal lengths but please don't expect miracles at wide-open apertures. It has ED glass which helps, still to eke out the best stop down 2-3 stops for best image quality. Only downside is distortion - obvious when shooting subjects with lines. I had brought along the 85 f 1.4 afd and a 35mm f2 nikkor-O but found myself using the 28-300mm lens more.

  12. #12
    Member Alan Chan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    561

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Quote Originally Posted by sandeepro View Post
    Me too absolutely confused between 18-200, 55-300, 28-300, 70-300. So far all the reviews I have read 55-300 & 70-300 lacks AF speed. 18-200 is an all-rounder but zoom creep may trouble. 28-300 is best of all in IQ but heavier and not sure if ideally suited for DX cameras.

    Please advise.
    diff range for diff budget and application, there is no one lens with best of everything and you have to juggle with the pros and cons. only you can tell yourself what you need after trying them.
    Nikon D700| 70-200mm f/2.8G VR2| 28-70mm f/2.8D| 85mm f/1.8G| 50mm f/1.8G| SB900/SB28| MB-D10

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Chan

    diff range for diff budget and application, there is no one lens with best of everything and you have to juggle with the pros and cons. only you can tell yourself what you need after trying them.
    Thanks CSers for your view and opinion. I may drop of 28-300 bcz of it's weight issue and prefer 70-300 for the same reason. Just worried about it's performance in low light. If needed I may also compliment it with mid range zoom 24-120mm f4. I am already carrying 18-55 kit lens.

    So, I may have 18-55, 24-120,70-300 setup. Although I am having DX body now, but I guess even if I upgrade to FX I will still bank on 24-120 and 70-300 in future. Sounds good?!?!?

  14. #14
    Member fmeeran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    834

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    That's a lot of overlap bro. You might want to consider the f1.8 prime lenses instead of the 24-120. f4 is really not that better than f4.5. Plus the primes are reasonably cheap.
    You'll get complete zoom range with the 18-55 and 70-300, and you'll get very nice fast lenses with the 35mmm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.
    Dxxxx | 35/1.8 | 50/1.8 | Tokina 28-70 | Panny G1 | 14-45 | 25/1.7
    My Flickr

  15. #15

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Quote Originally Posted by fmeeran View Post
    That's a lot of overlap bro. You might want to consider the f1.8 prime lenses instead of the 24-120. f4 is really not that better than f4.5. Plus the primes are reasonably cheap.
    You'll get complete zoom range with the 18-55 and 70-300, and you'll get very nice fast lenses with the 35mmm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.
    Changing lens up & down is a headace & your sensor get dust easy.
    Nikon User

  16. #16

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Agreed. Swopping out lenses tends to allow dust to get into your lens chamber.

    I borrowed a 28-300 for a couple of days, and I found that it's not a bad walkabout lens if you're not gunning for bokeh, though some decent bokeh can be achieved if you know how to pull it off (close portraits, with background quite a distance from subject). When shooting in low-light on a D7000/D300 at max zoom, it gets tricky - you either need a tripod, really steady hands, or shoot at high ISO. This problem wasn't an issue on the D700 and even less so on the D3s as I could let ISO wander to 6400 with minimal impact to quality.

    It kinda depends on what you're using the 28-300 with, I guess. In good light, this is perfect for FX users. I'm told that the glass is supposedly better as flaws tends to show up more easily on FX, which may explain why it's a little better than the 18-200 DX, but the latter is a preferable choice for DX users - cheaper and lighter.

  17. #17

    Default

    I agree that swapping of lens is not good for sensors. Also 18-55 and 70-300 is a complete zoom range. But of all the reviews I read image quality of 24-120 is much better than 28-300 or 70-300. Also, 24-120 is the mid zoom range which is sweet range of the travel, street, day n night photography. Constant f number would be a key.

    Havin said so, I may be wrong in my thinking. Hence appreciate your views.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    changing lens is never been a problem for a DSLR user...if not its defeat the purpose of owning a DSLR.

    unless you change lens every 5 or 10 mins...then it's a problem.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Quote Originally Posted by sandeepro View Post
    I agree that swapping of lens is not good for sensors. Also 18-55 and 70-300 is a complete zoom range. But of all the reviews I read image quality of 24-120 is much better than 28-300 or 70-300. Also, 24-120 is the mid zoom range which is sweet range of the travel, street, day n night photography. Constant f number would be a key.

    Havin said so, I may be wrong in my thinking. Hence appreciate your views.

    i don't think the IQ difference of 24-120 and 28-300 is huge. maybe abit better. anyway 18-55 and 70-300 2 lenses combo sounds good to me, u don't need to add the 24-120 seriously. it's a waste of money as 55-70 for most of us casual phtgr won't be missed, and it's juz a few steps forward n backwards. save the money to buy other equips like flash etc is better.

    else 18-200 all in one lens is also a good choice as it also covers the wide angle which u may need it in tight areas or landscape shoot, unlike 28-300 or 24-120. unless u think longer range is more important for u.

    btw, 28-300 is 800g, 70-300 is 745g, 24-120 is 710g and 18-200 is 565g.
    Last edited by baggiolee; 29th March 2011 at 03:03 PM.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Nikkor 28-300mm VR

    Quote Originally Posted by baggiolee View Post
    i don't think the IQ difference of 24-120 and 28-300 is huge. maybe abit better. anyway 18-55 and 70-300 2 lenses combo sounds good to me, u don't need to add the 24-120 seriously. it's a waste of money as 55-70 for most of us casual phtgr won't be missed, and it's juz a few steps forward n backwards. save the money to buy other equips like flash etc is better.

    else 18-200 all in one lens is also a good choice as it also covers the wide angle which u may need it in tight areas or landscape shoot, unlike 28-300 or 24-120. unless u think longer range is more important for u.

    btw, 28-300 is 800g, 70-300 is 745g, 24-120 is 710g and 18-200 is 565g.
    28-300 vs 70-300 means you carry one less lens (24-70) as well. I can't really agree that 28-70 is 'a couple of steps', since manufacturers make midrange zooms in that range (24-70), and the perspectives are different as well. To this end, I still feel that the 28-300 makes more sense in the longer term for better glass, and possibly better resale.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •