28-300mm f3.8-5.6 vs 70-300mm f4-5.6?

[dropzone]

The 28-300mm seems superior in every way (IMO), wide end of 28 cp to 70mm. I think I am missing something, but is there any reason why we should get a 70-300 instead of a 28-300?

Thanks.

 

[dropzone]

hmmm... anyone?

 

[buddy]

The 28-300mm seems superior in every way (IMO), wide end of 28 cp to 70mm. I think I am missing something, but is there any reason why we should get a 70-300 instead of a 28-300?

Thanks.

think you are referring to the 28-200 f3.5-5.6. havent used it myself but from what i have read, good lens - short and light, has IF and low min focusing distance of 1/2 a meter. as usual in most zooms, will not be so good at the long end of the range.

i think the reason to get the 70-300 is for the reach. unless you have some compelling reason to "go far", the 28-200 is an excellent choice. should consider tamron 28-200 XR or sigma 70-300 apo as well these should be around 200-400 bucks cheaper than the nikkors.

 

[dropzone]

I bought the Sigma 70-300 few days back, I am aware of the extra reach that the 300mm will provide. Saw that Sigma has a 28-300 too. Hence, I would think that the latter has a higher price tag on it. I am thinking won't it be better to have a 28-300 compared to a 70-300. This would mean bringing out 1 less kit lens. or the uses are different?

 

[dementate]

I bought the Sigma 70-300 few days back, I am aware of the extra reach that the 300mm will provide. Saw that Sigma has a 28-300 too. Hence, I would think that the latter has a higher price tag on it. I am thinking won't it be better to have a 28-300 compared to a 70-300. This would mean bringing out 1 less kit lens. or the uses are different?

a 28-300 (haven't read any reviews about this one) or 28-200 is a generally meant for walk-about snapshooting. i had a nikkor 28-200 for a couple of days, it was soft at 200. (for me anyways) so i now carry a 24-120vr and sometimes use my 80-200/2.8 (this is a fun lens, initially wanted to sell it off coz it's sooo heavy but after using it and getting some amazing shots without trying really hard, i love it)

 

[dropzone]

a 28-300 (haven't read any reviews about this one) or 28-200 is a generally meant for walk-about snapshooting. i had a nikkor 28-200 for a couple of days, it was soft at 200. (for me anyways) so i now carry a 24-120vr and sometimes use my 80-200/2.8 (this is a fun lens, initially wanted to sell it off coz it's sooo heavy but after using it and getting some amazing shots without trying really hard, i love it)

Yea, I think the Sigma is pretty soft at tele ends, but maybe its my shooting techniques that cause it too. Anyway, my doubt is that why would people buy a 70-300mm lens when a 28-300mm lens is available too from Sigma or any other brands. I thought it would be better to have a 28-300mm lens since this would mean that the person can bring out one less lens, say the kit lens, which cover 18-70mm (minus the wide end, unless wide angle is really needed).

 

[dementate]

Yea, I think the Sigma is pretty soft at tele ends, but maybe its my shooting techniques that cause it too. Anyway, my doubt is that why would people buy a 70-300mm lens when a 28-300mm lens is available too from Sigma or any other brands. I thought it would be better to have a 28-300mm lens since this would mean that the person can bring out one less lens, say the kit lens, which cover 18-70mm (minus the wide end, unless wide angle is really needed).

hmmm... i think i didn't get my point across quite, the general rule of thumb is that zoom lenses with bigger magnification factors are more of a compromise in terms of picture quality. a 28-300, for example, would be a 10x zoom, convenient but it may not get you as good image quality as say a combination of an 18-70 and an 80-200 would. you carry more lenses but they do a better job at their smaller focal ranges. that's not to say a hyper zoom like a 28-200 or 28-300 will give you crap, if you try it and like your pictures, good on ya!

i'd suggest you go do a search for threads about the 70-300 and the 28-200 on dpreview.com's d70 forum (there's a noteable one about a guy who went bikini shooting), the 70-300 is considered a consumer lens but seems to perform well in the eyes of many.

 

[mpenza]

Yea, I think the Sigma is pretty soft at tele ends, but maybe its my shooting techniques that cause it too. Anyway, my doubt is that why would people buy a 70-300mm lens when a 28-300mm lens is available too from Sigma or any other brands. I thought it would be better to have a 28-300mm lens since this would mean that the person can bring out one less lens, say the kit lens, which cover 18-70mm (minus the wide end, unless wide angle is really needed).

There are good 70-300 and bad 70-300. On a good 70-300, you get autofocus that is faster than a 28-300 plus better image quality (sharp and usable at max aperture at 200-300mm range).