Nikkor 28-300mm VR

[Cowseye]

In fact, the G version makes consistent appearance in BnS @ < $200

Get the VR version

 

[Cowseye]

I would be more incline to the options by froknowsphoto in the video by getting 2 lens instead of a single 28-300. 24-120mm to me gives me the not wide enough and not zoom enough feeling.

 

[baggiolee]

we can suggest a lot of lenses but only u know which lens suits u more. don't just buy all lenses just because we suggested, sooner or later one of the lenses will be underused and keep in dry cabinet forever. it's a waste of money.

personally i think all u need is to get the only one lens to compliment ur current setup....for the time being.

 

[xtemujin]

Yes, it is quite common for these types of lenses with the distortion and it also the same with the 18-200mm.

Cheers.

The photo looks very sharp bro...
captured nicely...
slight vignetting seen in few photo...is that usual for 28-300mm lense?

 

[stanycjw]

The 70-300 which version you think it lack of AF spped?
I used 70-300 VR ED and it able to capture BIF even sparrow in-flight.

 

[wismchan]

How much roughly is this 28-300mm lense sell in singapore?

 

[sandeepro]

How much roughly is this 28-300mm lense sell in singapore?

1300-1400 range.

 

[fmeeran]

If 28-300, 24-120 and 70-300 is all FX lens, then choice of using it on DX body makes it x1.5 already. Adding to that of weight of 24-120 is least among all these three. Also, AF is faster and IQ is very crispy and distinctly better than other two. 24-120 is Just 300$ more than 28-300. And do we normally need that high zoom of 70-300 even when at higher end f number is not exciting and AF is slower. 24-120 does have manual overide AF, which I guess could be quite useful, and nano crystal coating which shouldn't be undermine as well.

So, if buying FX lens on DX body and think of sweet zoom range where most photography happens for travel and occasions, don't you think 24-120 makes more sense of investment considering all these points. To me it seems future generation lens.

Just to be clear, the field of view of ALL lenses (FX or DX) mounted on a DX body gives the x1.5 magnification. It is due to the DX body and will happen even with DX lenses. So please do not confuse FOV with the focal length of the lens. 55mm DX lens and 55mm FX lens will work the same way on a DX body, just that on a FX body the DX lens might vignette.

Considering TS already has the 18-55, it does not make much sense for him to buy the 28-300 or 24-120 as there will be a large overlap unless he doesn't like changing lenses. I personally feel 24mm/28mm is not wide enough for landscape photography on a DX, which is why i have the 18-105 for those occasions.

The f numbers of all these lenses are similar at equivalent focal lengths, so I don't see much of an advantage in spending more money than a 70-300mm VR. It gives the 300mm reach, is reasonably light, is quite a bit cheaper, and covers from 70mm a little past where the 18-55 left off. And AF is quite fast. I have had an 18-200 and this focuses just as fast if not faster. Don't know about the 28-300 or 24-120. Btw, the 70-300mm vr does have manual override AF. It is a very good lens for its price. And you can buy the fast prime lens with the money left over which will usually give you much better quality than any of these zooms.

Caution: Read this with a pinch of salt. This is MY opinion only and is due to the direction I have taken, at the end of the day you should decide for yourself. Suggest trying the lenses out at the NSC before deciding.

 

[Cowseye]

Add another pinch to you fmeeran, I have the same thinking as you for TS

 

[sandeepro]

Just to be clear, the field of view of ALL lenses (FX or DX) mounted on a DX body gives the x1.5 magnification. It is due to the DX body and will happen even with DX lenses. So please do not confuse FOV with the focal length of the lens. 55mm DX lens and 55mm FX lens will work the same way on a DX body, just that on a FX body the DX lens might vignette.

Considering TS already has the 18-55, it does not make much sense for him to buy the 28-300 or 24-120 as there will be a large overlap unless he doesn't like changing lenses. I personally feel 24mm/28mm is not wide enough for landscape photography on a DX, which is why i have the 18-105 for those occasions.

The f numbers of all these lenses are similar at equivalent focal lengths, so I don't see much of an advantage in spending more money than a 70-300mm VR. It gives the 300mm reach, is reasonably light, is quite a bit cheaper, and covers from 70mm a little past where the 18-55 left off. And AF is quite fast. I have had an 18-200 and this focuses just as fast if not faster. Don't know about the 28-300 or 24-120. Btw, the 70-300mm vr does have manual override AF. It is a very good lens for its price. And you can buy the fast prime lens with the money left over which will usually give you much better quality than any of these zooms.

Caution: Read this with a pinch of salt. This is MY opinion only and is due to the direction I have taken, at the end of the day you should decide for yourself. Suggest trying the lenses out at the NSC before deciding.

Thanks buddy.

 

[blurboiboi]

sharing shots taken with this lens... hope you guys like it..

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/935051-NDP-Rehearsal-2011-(17072011)