Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR on D90


Jul 17, 2009
40
0
0
#1
hi,

has anyone used Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR on a D90, i understand they are designed for fx formats... but just would like get some feedback on how they are on a DX...

thanks...
 

pasay

New Member
May 13, 2010
508
0
0
Singapore
#4
haven't tried the 28-300, but i believe it is supposed to be the equivalent focal length on FX to give similar field of view of 18-200 on DX.

so effectively 28-300 is 42-450 FOV on DX. optics-wise, i haven't had the chance to try it out. yet. ;)
 

Nubzz

New Member
Dec 31, 2010
192
0
0
32
Singapore
#5
If the optics is not bad.. then it will have a pretty gd coverage from 42 - 450mm.. Add on a good short lens / uwa lens, then will have quite a large area of coverage already..

but 70-300 is also pretty tempting with it's pricing & optic quality.
 

Jul 17, 2009
40
0
0
#6
i see... thanks, niways hopefully someone would post some feedback here... coz i'm considering a new 28-300 over an 18-800.
i'm thinking it might be a good choice, for an all-in-one range since i like to take travel shots and sports shots too...

keep posting guys,thanks..
 

nice1888

New Member
Nov 9, 2008
246
0
0
Singapore
#7
i see... thanks, niways hopefully someone would post some feedback here... coz i'm considering a new 28-300 over an 18-800.
i'm thinking it might be a good choice, for an all-in-one range since i like to take travel shots and sports shots too...

keep posting guys,thanks..
If you just want to travel with 1 lens (all-in-one range). I suggest you go for 18-200mm.
28-300 is not wide enough for travel (landscape and indoor shot like hotel room) in my opinion, it really need to pair with wide angle lens for dx.
 

Last edited:

FT230

New Member
Aug 24, 2010
18
0
0
Batam, Indonesia
#8
If you shoot wide on most situation than I suggest 18-200. Unless you get another wide angle lens along with 28-300.
 

Jul 17, 2009
40
0
0
#9
FT230 said:
If you shoot wide on most situation than I suggest 18-200. Unless you get another wide angle lens along with 28-300.
If you just want to travel with 1 lens (all-in-one range). I suggest you go for 18-200mm.
28-300 is not wide enough for travel (landscape and indoor shot like hotel room) in my opinion, it really need to pair with wide angle lens for dx.
thanks again for the heads up... hopefully, more people would give updates/feedbacks/opinions or reviews...

i understand that i'll be handicapped on the wide-shot area, but i will indeed keep my kit 18-55 for that purpose.

essentially, i guess i can have the understanding that the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR can be used on the D90...
 

pasay

New Member
May 13, 2010
508
0
0
Singapore
#10
praetorean said:
thanks again for the heads up... hopefully, more people would give updates/feedbacks/opinions or reviews...

i understand that i'll be handicapped on the wide-shot area, but i will indeed keep my kit 18-55 for that purpose.

essentially, i guess i can have the understanding that the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR can be used on the D90...
well, if you use the 28-300 with the intent to "keep the kit 18-55" for your wide-angle shots, kinda defeats the purpose of having an all-in-one travel lens, right? then you might also consider the kit 18-105 + 70-300 combo

just my 2 cents
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#11
well, if you use the 28-300 with the intent to "keep the kit 18-55" for your wide-angle shots, kinda defeats the purpose of having an all-in-one travel lens, right? then you might also consider the kit 18-105 + 70-300 combo

just my 2 cents
Or a Tamron 18-270mm VC.
 

yeekhai

New Member
Feb 14, 2009
263
0
0
Bukit Batok
#12
i hv the 28-300, i used 18-250 sigma before.

28-300 is heavy, i prefer the 18-250 sigma due to weight and for travel if i still have 18-250.

you can go ken rockwell 's website for his review

i m using D7000
 

Aug 20, 2006
192
0
16
#13
I used to have D90 with 28-300, quite difficult to balance.
 

Big Kahuna

Senior Member
Dec 15, 2004
2,126
1
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#14
It's neither here nor there on a DX, and unlikey you want to change lens so frequent just to go wide, I suggest you save your budget for future upgrade :sweat:
 

s1221ljc

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
825
1
18
#15
Getting a 28-300mm for DX doesnt make sense as can be seen from most of the feedback here but hey its your money, you spend it the way you want. The rationale of having a lens like the 28-3oomm for FX & the equivalent 18-200mm for DX is to cover both wide & tele as a all in one. If you are keeping the 18-55mm & its the longer end you are after then get the 55-300mm which is the ideal match thats so much cheaper & a equally capable performer.
 

Last edited:
Jul 17, 2009
40
0
0
#16
Getting a 28-300mm for DX doesnt make sense as can be seen from most of the feedback here but hey its your money, you spend it the way you want. The rationale of having a lens like the 28-3oomm for FX & the equivalent 18-200mm for DX is to cover both wide & tele as a all in one. If you are keeping the 18-55mm & its the longer end you are after then get the 55-300mm which is the ideal match thats so much cheaper & a equally capable performer.

well, if you use the 28-300 with the intent to "keep the kit 18-55" for your wide-angle shots, kinda defeats the purpose of having an all-in-one travel lens, right? then you might also consider the kit 18-105 + 70-300 combo

just my 2 cents

thanks again... niways, here's post also I'm using the Nikon 28-300mm with my D90.... so i guess the lens can be used on a d90.

i think i can live w/ being 10mm short on wide-angle shots if i go for the 28-300mm. besides, i'll still have my old 18-55mm kit anyways. additionally, i'm more interested on the reach as i like to take actions shots i.e. tennis, basketball, etc.

as s1221ljc says, it's about the budget too :), so on my ideal side... i'd love to get the 28-300mm if budget allows it or else i'll have to settle for the 18-200 but the downside of getting the 18-200mm would also render my 18-55mm useless already.

whilst with the 28-300mm, i can still make use of my 18-55mm on occasions where the 28-300 would be too bulky. and on a foresight, if i ever upgrade to an fx body; then i already have a lens.

anyways, i really appreciate you comments guys... thanks a lot. it really helps put things into perspective & there's always the option to rent out the lens for a day for test purposes.

here's a blog too: Nikon 28-300mm VR vs. 18-200 VR II - Buy or Cry?
thanks again...
 

Last edited:

pasay

New Member
May 13, 2010
508
0
0
Singapore
#17
praetorean said:
thanks again... niways, here's post also I'm using the Nikon 28-300mm with my D90.... so i guess the lens can be used on a d90.

i think i can live w/ being 10mm short on wide-angle shots if i go for the 28-300mm. besides, i'll still have my old 18-55mm kit anyways. additionally, i'm more interested on the reach as i like to take actions shots i.e. tennis, basketball, etc.

as s1221ljc says, it's about the budget too :), so on my ideal side... i'd love to get the 28-300mm if budget allows it or else i'll have to settle for the 18-200 but the downside of getting the 18-200mm would also render my 18-55mm useless already.

whilst with the 28-300mm, i can still make use of my 18-55mm on occasions where the 28-300 would be too bulky. and on a foresight, if i ever upgrade to an fx body; then i already have a lens.

anyways, i really appreciate you comments guys... thanks a lot. it really helps put things into perspective & there's always the option to rent out the lens for a day for test purposes.

here's a blog too: Nikon 28-300mm VR vs. 18-200 VR II - Buy or Cry?
thanks again...
if really tight on your budget, you can also consider the 70-300. cheaper, also of excellent build, IQ also ok and also an Fx lens. you wont miss the balance 55-70mm focal length, just one step forward or back.

just giving you another option. :) btw on Dx, 10mm difference is 10x1.5= 15mm FOV.

but if looking for an all-rounder, 28-300 is more flexible than 70-300. if you ever get one, please do let us know how's the performance. :)
 

Jul 17, 2009
40
0
0
#18
thanks...

if really tight on your budget, you can also consider the 70-300. cheaper
i have tried the 70-300 before, they're ok; but i find the 70mm on the wide side just not wide enough.


on Dx, 10mm difference is 10x1.5= 15mm FOV.
i can settle for that range diff on the wide side, they should be ok coz like i said; i'll still have the 18-55 kit.


28-300 is more flexible than 70-300. if you ever get one, please do let us know how's the performance. :)
per specs and feedback, should be ok. And thanks again, i'll post my feedback if i ever get one ;-) i'll probably rent one first before getting the real thing.
btw; pasay, you wouldn't happen to be a Filipino?
 

Mar 17, 2010
1,388
0
0
#19
gotta consider if you usually/enjoy shooting wide. if yes, 42mm widest (28 x 1.5) may not suffice. :)

edit: read that you own the 18-55. well I guess wide wouldn't bo so much of an issue. but probably consider saving the hassle of changing lens.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#20
well, if you use the 28-300 with the intent to "keep the kit 18-55" for your wide-angle shots, kinda defeats the purpose of having an all-in-one travel lens, right? then you might also consider the kit 18-105 + 70-300 combo

just my 2 cents
Or the new Tamron 70-300 VC USD.

Very very good reviews.

http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom