Nikkor 28-300mm VR


wismchan

New Member
Feb 11, 2007
17
0
1
#1
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..
 

luna_sea83

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,294
0
36
East
#2
28-300 on full frame is equivalent to the 18-200 on the crop sensor.
 

fmeeran

New Member
Nov 5, 2010
834
0
0
Clementi, Singapore
#3
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.
 

sandeepro

New Member
Mar 25, 2011
47
0
0
34
#5
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.
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#6
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.
 

sandeepro

New Member
Mar 25, 2011
47
0
0
34
#7
Sgdevilzz said:
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?
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#8
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.
 

Big Kahuna

Senior Member
Dec 15, 2004
2,126
1
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#9
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.
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#10
if you are not shooting wide angle, 28-300 would be a very nice zoom(~normal to long tele) for APSC format.
 

Jan 15, 2004
418
0
16
Bukit Batok
www.flickr.com
#11
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
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.
 

sandeepro

New Member
Mar 25, 2011
47
0
0
34
#13
Alan Chan said:
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?!?!?
 

fmeeran

New Member
Nov 5, 2010
834
0
0
Clementi, Singapore
#14
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.
 

Die Hard

Senior Member
Jun 4, 2007
770
0
16
#15
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.
 

ghoonk

New Member
Jul 30, 2007
430
0
0
Dubai, UAE
500px.com
#16
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.
 

sandeepro

New Member
Mar 25, 2011
47
0
0
34
#17
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.
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#18
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.
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#19
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:

ghoonk

New Member
Jul 30, 2007
430
0
0
Dubai, UAE
500px.com
#20
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.
 

Top Bottom