Nikon 28-300mm VR Review

Comments

1. 

   1

   ) Avi Revivo
   October 11, 2010 at 4:45 am

   Excellent review. As always.

   As a previous owner of the 18-200 I understand your feeling towards it. I sold it a few month after I bought it. Sharpness above 105mm and bokeh were the main reasons (it is “impressive” that the 18-200 is better than the 28-300 in terms of bokeh… very “impressive”)

   Keep up the good work!

   Reply
   • 

     7

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 11, 2010 at 9:45 am

     Thank you Avi! I tried at least 3-4 copies of the 18-200mm and all of them had similar problems…

     Reply
     • 

       79

       ) Harry Reid
       October 22, 2010 at 8:52 am

       Hi Nasim,
       This Forum has been most informative and interesting. However, I’m still dithering over whether or not to buy the Nikon 28-300. Instead, following advice from a good friend and photographer, I’m seeking opinions and advice on buying the Sigma 100-300 f4 lens. I’m told that this is a particularly sharp lens right through the zoom range. Would you, or anyone viewing this Forum, have any opinions/advice comparing the Nikon to the Sigma? If anyone reading this has a Sigma 100-300F4 lens, I’d really like to hear their opinions too. Some may argue that it’s an unfair comparison to make since the Nikon starts at 28mm while the Sigma starts at 100mm. However, speaking selfishly, as I already have the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 lens, the Sigma would fill a very useful zoom range for me without having all that extra “glass” that the 28-300 has.
       Harry R.

       Reply
       • 

         96

         ) Christiaan Raab
         November 11, 2010 at 1:31 pm

         Dear harry Reid.

         I use the Tamron 28-300mm VR lens It gives me good results. sand the prize is also O.K. half of the prize for the Nikon 28-300 VR.
         I also use the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the 16-35 f4. VR.
         On my web site you can see the results of all the lenses .
         with kind regards, Christiaan Raab (Holland)

         Reply
       • 

         310

         ) Seth Block
         March 26, 2012 at 8:54 am

         Harry,

         I had the Sigma 100-300 f4 several years ago, it is one of the few lenses that I regret selling.
         I went to the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFS and that is a sharper lense, much heavier and more expensive, but that Sigma is one of those lenses that defies reason for me, I am considering buying another one…

         Good Luck.

         Seth

         Reply
       • 

         319

         ) Graham Hill
         July 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm

         I have the Sigma 100-300 f4 and I love it. I take pictures at a lot of college football games and when I have to get on an airplane I bring this lens instead of my Nikon 200-400 f4, just because it’s so much smaller. It’s obvioulsy not the same lens but one has to look pretty hard to be able to tell the difference in image quality. I will never sell it!

         Reply
2. 

   2

   ) sm
   October 11, 2010 at 5:54 am

   Naseem,

   Thanks for the excellent review. Thats a lot of information and very lucidly written. As far as Nikon gear is concerned, I do believe your reviews are probably the best on the web.

   I used the 18-200 a lot on my D90, and have the same issues. It’s soft, more so at the long end. The biggest plus is that one can carry one less ( although a heavy one) without the need to change. Now that I have upgraded to FX ( thanks again to your website), I would need a walk-around lens for vacation and travel. However, I am wary to picking the 28-300 mainly because of the issues you brought you. My two biggest issues are the weight and bulk of the lens and its poor performance at the long end. I am eagerly looking forward to your review of the 24-120. On looking at my previous usage, I do think I use the wide end of the spectrum a LOT more than the long end and the 24-120 may be the better lens for me. It should be a much better lens than its predecessor. The additional coverage at the wide angle, along with it being a little lighter are big pluses for me. If the performance of 24-70 is better than 28-300, I would buy it asap. The 24-70 2.8 is just too big and huge. Is there a chance that you may get this lens soon and review it? Ken Rockwell just reviewed the 24-120, but I don’t believe his reviews that much.

   thanks again…

   Reply
   • 

     320

     ) aldo
     October 29, 2012 at 9:08 am

     Hi. Please tell me why you don’t believe Ken rockwell test, just have a look at his photographs and you will understand that for that kind of work a pinhole in his camera is overkill. Really, had you watch his work, it is oversaturated, dull in terms of image, composition, and so on, but it is his style. I understand that he likes his work, but I don’t understand why he believes is the only one who has reason. His test are completely subjetives, Nasim tests are objetive, and that, my friend makes a world of difference. In such a way Rockwell test are useful, if he says a lens is bad, then it is really bad, if he says it is good or excellent, then triple check and have one to try. Useful link to discard bad lenses, not to find good ones. I believe Rockwell is a very well informed person, which is not the same as having knowledge. Having been informed and having knowkedge are very easily mistaken, but what a different they are.

     Reply
3. 

   3

   ) KSPGM
   October 11, 2010 at 7:19 am

   28-300 review

   great article. thanks. just one request:

   why did you not compare the 28-300 with the 70-300, which is probably its greatest rival?

   Reply
   • 

     5

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 11, 2010 at 9:34 am

     KSPGM, thank you for your feedback!

     I felt that a comparison against the Nikon 70-300mm is redundant, since the Nikon 70-300mm does not have a lens breathing issue. Therefore, the comparison would be similar to that of 55-300mm.

     Reply
     • 

       10

       ) sm
       October 11, 2010 at 9:52 am

       Have to agree with Nasim. I have used the 70-300 and 18-200 on D90 (DX) and the 70-300 is way better. Even an amateur like me can appreciate that. Using 18-200 (DX) and 28-300 (FX) has got many advantages, but you do pay a price for the all in one capability.

       Reply
4. 

   4

   ) exgrande
   October 11, 2010 at 8:23 am

   assalamu’alaikum naseem.

   i’m using D90, which is bored with the kit lens 18-105 VR. i’m looking for a longer zoom lens, and i need your advice.

   please make a comparative analysis between these 3 lens, the best to suits my current DX or future FX:
   a) new 28-300
   b) new 55-300
   c) not so new 70-300

   thanks in advance.

   Reply
   • 

     6

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 11, 2010 at 9:37 am

     Exgrande, without a doubt, go with the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR – it not only gives longer reach at close distances, but also performs better when it comes to autofocus.

     Reply
     • 

       12

       ) exgrande
       October 12, 2010 at 5:40 am

       thanks a lot, nasim. now i can focus sharply towards 70-300 VR.

       Reply
5. 

   9

   ) Reza
   October 11, 2010 at 9:37 am

   Naseem,
   Regarding the test and comparison of FOV we should consider that if the subjects are close to the camera like your test we have shrinkage in the focal points of many zoom lenses.
   To have a better results it’s better to have different tests from 10 and 20 meters also which I’m sure that the difference in FOV of 3 lenses is much less than 3.5 meters.

   Thanks

   Reply
   • 

     8

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 11, 2010 at 9:50 am

     Reza, yes, I am pointing out the same thing under “Focus Breathing” section, where I state that the effective focal length varies by subject distance. I did not feel the need to run tests at different distances, since it would have dramatically increased the amount of time spent on testing the lens.

     If you are referring to the three images comparing the field of view, then yes, if I shot the same subject at infinity, both 28-300mm and the 300mm would have had a similar FoV.

     Reply
6. 

   11

   ) Del-Uks
   October 11, 2010 at 3:21 pm

   A very interresting review Nasim Mansurov. Thank you !

   I was about to order mine today, but now I’ve read your review of the 28-300mm I just can’t wait to read the one you’ll write on the new 24-120 f/4 ;-)

   Hopefully this one will meet our expectation…

   Reply
   • 

     31

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 14, 2010 at 11:56 am

     Del-Uks, you are most welcome!

     I still have not gotten my 24-120mm f/4.0…not sure what’s going on, but it seems to be still on backorder.

     Reply
7. 

   13

   ) KSPGM
   October 12, 2010 at 7:15 am

   Hi again Naseem,

   having gone over your review again, would I be correct in assuming that in the 28-200 mm range, the 28-300 generally outperforms the 18-200 on a DX body?

   Reply
   • 

     32

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 14, 2010 at 11:57 am

     KSPGM, yes, the 28-300mm does outperform 18-200mm, especially above 105mm.

     Reply
8. 

   14

   ) Don
   October 12, 2010 at 11:34 am

   Hi Naseem,

   Salaams. Great review. Now that I have my 28-300mm and just put down your review, I sort of wish that I hadn’t gotten it. :) I am using the 28-300 with a D3s. I am contemplating selling the 28-300 and getting the 24-120, to go along with my Nikon 14-24mm and my 120-400mm Sigma. Your thoughts on this.

   Great site. Glad I found it.

   Reply
   • 

     15

     ) Del-Uks
     October 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm

     Hi Don,

     Why don’t you give us your feedback about the 28-300mm ?

     Like you, I’ve been thinking about this “holy trinity” : Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (wich I already own), Nikon 24-120 f/4 and Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS HSM

     You might already know the Sigma 120-400mm has really good reputation but it’s a heavy one (~1.8 kg).

     Reply
     • 

       16

       ) Don
       October 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm

       Hi Del-Uks,

       I know that the Sigma is heavy. You have to really want to take it when you want to go out. This is not a decision taken lightly (pun intended). :)

       Ah the 28-300mm. What can I say? I had the 18-200mm and it was a great lens. I had it in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and finally Finland. After picking up the D3s on an upgrade from the D300S I decided to go all FX lenses. A friend that purchased my D300S was looking for a great lens so I sold the 18-200mm and picked up the 28-300mm. Using it a few weeks I noticed that I love the anti-creep function quite a bit, but after reading many reviews of the lens, I do see a few of its short comings. There is the vignetting and a bit of soft focus out at the far end. I do like the fact that it can focus up close though. Maybe I can post some shots over on Flicker or somewhere. Here you go. Only had time to put up a few but you can see what I am talking about. http://www.flickr.com/photos/11175635@N00/

       Hope this helps.

       Don

       Reply
       • 

         17

         ) Del-Uks
         October 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm

         Vignetting is quite strong indeed.

         Thank you for the link Don !

         Reply
         • 

           18

           ) Don
           October 12, 2010 at 3:48 pm

           Mind you, it had the lens hood on. I will go out this weekend without it and see if it makes a difference. I wonder if Naseem can answer regarding the original 24-120mm and the new 24-120mm f4. I can get either but the original with the variable aperture is about €500 cheaper. Am I losing much by getting the cheaper one or is the new one a must? Decisions, decisions. :)

           Reply
           • 

             34

             ) Nasim Mansurov
             October 14, 2010 at 12:03 pm

             Don, removing the lens hood will not decrease the amount of vignetting…lens hoods are used against flare to block sun rays from directly hitting the front element.

             In terms of 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 24-120mm f/4.0, the latter is going to be sharper for sure. I just don’t know how much sharper yet.
   • 

     33

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm

     Don, can’t you just return the lens from where you bought it? Also, please keep in mind that most of these tests are done at wide open apertures. Stopped down, most lenses, including the 28-300mm perform well.

     The 28-300mm is definitely not a low-light lens…

     Reply
9. 

   19

   ) Harry Reid
   October 12, 2010 at 4:04 pm

   Hi Nasim,
   Many thanks for your email alerting me to your Review of the Nikon 28-300 lens. And thanks again for saving me money! Thanks to your excellent Review, I’ve decided not to buy the 28-300 because you don’t recommend it for fast moving wildlife photography, etc. I’ll stay with my Sigma 150-500 for that. (This is a great lens and I’ve had some great hand-held shots with it.) My primary lens is the Nikon 24-70 F2.8, which is really excellent. However, I had hoped that the 28-300 would have filled the “slot” between the 24-70 and the Sigma 150-500. I’ll now wait for your review of the Nikon 24-120,.that should prove interesting!
   Thanks again.
   Go Well.
   Harry Reid.

   Reply
   • 

     20

     ) Don
     October 12, 2010 at 5:04 pm

     Uhhhhh……Harry Reid the Senator? :)

     Reply
     • 

       24

       ) Harry Reid
       October 13, 2010 at 10:17 am

       Hi Don,.
       Absolutely not,.thank goodness. There’s an “L” in between H & R!!!!!!!!! Don’t think that particular Senator has that!!
       Regards.
       Harry L Reid.

       Reply
       • 

         36

         ) Nasim Mansurov
         October 14, 2010 at 12:05 pm

         LOL Harry, thanks for clarifying :)))

         Reply
   • 

     22

     ) Amit
     October 13, 2010 at 9:32 am

     Why are you interested in 24-120 when you already have an excellent lens like 24-70? If filling that ‘slot’ is important to you then won’t 105mm f/2.0 DC make more sense? I am not suggesting anything (I am an amateur) but I just want to understand the rationale behind this. I would be interested in Nasim’s opinion.

     Reply
     • 

       23

       ) Harry Reid
       October 13, 2010 at 10:12 am

       Hello Amit,.
       Thank you for your response. I originally intended buying the 28-300 to have a “go everywhere” zoom lens to cover the wide variety of subject matter that interests me as a keen amateur. However, Nasim’s Review of this lens discouraged me! Yes, the 24-70 is an excellent lens. However, the 70mm end of this zoom lens leaves me “short” sometimes when I could do with a greater zoom to do the subject justice. Hence the idea of, at least, considering the 24-120 lens since the 28-300 zoom may not do a really fine job. What you say about considering the 105mm lens is not incorrect, but it’s not a zoom. Therefore changing the lens comes into the equation and that’s not always an option where wildlife is concerned! Any other suggestions? All are welcome.
       Go Well.
       Harry R.

       Reply
       • 

         37

         ) Nasim Mansurov
         October 14, 2010 at 12:10 pm

         Harry, have you considered the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II to cover the range above 70mm? I personally think that it would be a waste to add the 24-120mm to your arsenal – you would find yourself either leaving the 24-70mm at home a lot, or the 24-120mm. The 70-200mm, however, is a different story, since you can use it for longer range shots to get sharp images with beautiful bokeh – something very few other lenses can offer.

         Reply
       • 

         165

         ) LOU
         January 8, 2011 at 7:17 pm

         Harry:

         First, let me get situated on my soap box…

         I thought I’d chime in; better late than never. If you return to your original 28-300 thesis – a walk-around, do-most lens, which is most certainly Nikon’s thesis for this lens – then that may still be the most viable aspect to consider. If we all wanted the same thing, then we would have little to choose from, right?

         I understand the desire to cover the complete range, as well, and the 24-70 being too short on the top end; it is, if you’re trying to use it like a 28-300. But the 24-70 came to be as a “system” 2.8 “pro” lens, nestled between Nikon’s 14-24 & revamped 70-200 2.8 masterpieces. These are designed for working pros, who expect high-level performance and fast f-stops. This all goes back to decades of servicing film-based photojournalists. I own & use all three 2.8′s, but I’m still getting a 28-300! It fills a need the other three lenses don’t.

         As you know, Nikon – the camera/lens maker – serves two distinct markets: pros & non-pros. They make products to compete in these two markets. Your 24-70 fills the former, and the 28-300 aimed almost entirely at amateurs, but a pro may certainly desire one for the same reasons you or I would. This “need” shouldn’t rest on someone else’s review, however astute & influencing. We all adore Nasim & his efforts, but we all have different needs.

         Also, with the digital-post advances, most of the practical downside of a lens like the 28-300 (distortion/chromatic aberration/fall-off) can be mitigated/eliminated in Lightroom, or other software; Lightroom has progressed, albeit incrementally, in its automated lens corrections. LR 3.3 provides correction for virtually all current Nikkors. They have to, because Nikon (and Canon) is a big dog.

         My advice: Get a 28-300 and try it for the 14 days a B&H, etc., allows. Go out and shoot it in the manner that fueled your original thesis. If you don’t like the results, return it & somebody like me will walk up to the counter and buy it – for keeps. Hope this helps, Harry.

         Reply
   • 

     35

     ) Nasim Mansurov
     October 14, 2010 at 12:05 pm

     Thank you for your feedback Harry! Trust me, you would not have been happy with the 28-300mm since you have the 24-70mm :)

     Reply
10. 

    21

    ) Del-Uks
    October 12, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Me again… just to let you know Ken Rockwell updated his review of the Nikon 24-120mm

    He insists on saying the 28-300mm and the 24-120mm are “just as sharp as each other, which is pretty sharp. Depending on the test conditions for each frame, one will be slightly better or worse than the other.” [...] “The 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens, however, sharpness, mechanical quality and distortion are the same as the 28-300mm VR.” [...] “This 24-120mm is a great lens. It’s not the fault of this lens, but Nikon just happened to introduce the more useful and equal quality 28-300mm at a lower price on the same day, which in my opinion, made this 24-120mm lens obsolete the day it was announced.”

    Once again, I can’t wait to read Nasim Mansurov’s review of the 24-120mm f/4 to figure out what is Ken Rockwell smoking…

    Reply
    • 

      38

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 14, 2010 at 12:12 pm

      Thanks for posting the info. I don’t think the 24-120mm is obsolete. If the 28-300mm was as good as the 24-120mm or even better, Nikon would not have bothered releasing this lens. At least not together with the 24-120mm.

      Reply
11. 

    25

    ) Doug
    October 13, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Thanks for the careful and insightful review of the 28-300VR. Hoping that the lens would be at least in the same ballpark as the 70-300VR, along with added range and closeup ability, I pre-ordered it as soon as it became available. My copy proved to be frustratingly soft and performed very similarly to your description and to your test images — almost, but not quite, good. However, based on comments from a French gentleman on dpreviews and Ken Rockwell’s seemingly inconsistent test results, I decided that there might be significant sample variations in this lens. So (for the first time ever), I returned my first copy and ordered a second copy (this time from B&H). The difference is night and day! The new copy appeared to be eerily sharp in my first few handheld shots. When I crudely set up a test chart for 300mm, f/5.6, to compare to my previous careful test chart shots of my first 28-300VR and 70-300VR (and 70-200VR II as a reference point), the results are stunning. The new copy easily outresolves my D700 sensor wide open at 300mm! Obviously, the 70-200VR still destroys both long zooms, even if you compare it wide open at f/2.8.

    Test results are here:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/sets/72157624886682826/with/5079875658/

    In this case, you may want to exchange your copy and re-test. But in any case, the lens is, at best, inconsistent. But I’m very happy with my new copy!

    Doug

    Reply
    • 

      27

      ) KSPGM
      October 14, 2010 at 4:21 am

      Very interesting Doug! I have found that my copy of the 28-300 is also ‘stunning’ virtually through out the entire range when used on a D300s. I have since sold on my 18-200 as I do not need the wide end for my preferred photograpy. I am considering now whether or not I still need my 70-300 lens. Jury is still out on that one as I am not yet sure whether or not the 28-300 is quite as good at capturing moving objects as the 70-300. Howevber, in terms of sharpness, I can find very little difference – even at 300 mm. In fact I am finding close comparison with my 70-200 VRI, of course neglecting the f/2.8 advantage. I have posted queries on other internet sites to see if I am ‘missing something here’?

      I think that Naeem should indeed test another 28-300 in order to confirm his conclusions.

      Reply
      • 

        29

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        October 14, 2010 at 11:49 am

        KSPGM, I might have received a bad copy, but I doubt it. Have you compared yours against the 24-70mm or some other superior lens to see the difference?

        I could certainly test another 28-300mm, but I don’t have one. If anyone wants to send me their copy (will ship it back at my expense), let me know and I will retest once again.

        Reply
        • 

          44

          ) KSPGM
          October 14, 2010 at 12:24 pm

          Hi Nasim,

          Sorry to have mis-spelt your name! Yes, I have compared my 28-300 with my 20-700VR1. The 70-200 is better all round, even with a 1.4 TC for the long end …. but … there is not a huge difference. I would still take the 70-200 and TC’s if I was going out for a specific shoot and was up to carrying the extra weight – mainly for the f/2.8 advantage! But most of the time the 28-300 will live be on my d300s from now on.

          Unlike JohnM, I’m still not convinced that the 28-300 is able to replace the 70-300. I have not done enough comparisons yet and here in England in the Autumn is not the best time for action shots – the light at present is very poor! I still have a feeling that the 70-300 is a touch quicker in terms of focusing of moving objects. However, all of the comparisons I have so far made of static shots seem to give the 28-300 and 70-300 much the same IQ.; one a touch better at some settings the other a touch better at others but much the same overall. If the 70-300 is quicker on AF it still makes sense to keep it for those days when lugging around the 70-200 is not so attractive! Do you have any thoughts on the AF comparison?

          I had a plan to replace my 16-85 with the new 24-120 when combining with either the 70-200 or 70-300 – it would give a better cross-over in the mid range that I prefer to shoot at. Now I’m no longer sure! KR (take him or leave him!) has strong views in this respect which cannot be discounted. I think I and others following your site are looking forward to your review of the 24-120.

          thank you both for your useful test results and for replying to my e-mails!

          Reply
          • 

            40

            ) Nasim Mansurov
            October 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm

            KSPGM, I understand what you are saying, sometimes the lens performance is so close that it might not be worth lugging multiple lenses or the heavy gear around. Again, whatever works for you :)

            In terms of 70-300mm vs 70-200mm performance comparison (not sure if that’s what you were looking for), take a look at the comparisons in my Nikon 70-300mm VR Review – you will find test shot comparisons there.

            Now getting back to 28-300mm…only a real test shooting your subjects would show which one is better. Try to shoot a lot with both the 28-300mm and the 70-300mm and see which one delivers better results. Like I indicated in my review, I was pretty frustrated with getting accurate focus on distant subjects when shooting at 300mm. I did not have this problem with the 70-300mm for sure. Another thing to keep in mind, the 70-300mm gives you real 300mm, while the 28-300mm is a much shorter lens when shooting close subjects. If you photograph birds and other small subjects at close range, the 70-300mm is clearly a superior lens.

            Reply
          • 

            41

            ) Nasim Mansurov
            October 14, 2010 at 12:38 pm

            Note that shooting both the 28-300mm and the 70-300mm in low-light conditions is surely challenging. I found the 70-300mm to also have a similar AF accuracy issue when shooting at 300mm, but only when shooting in challenging light/low light situations. The 28-300mm AF performed quite poorly at 300mm even in bright daylight.

            Reply
            • 

              47

              ) Doug
              October 15, 2010 at 7:45 am

              I did 4-5 hours of shooting with my second copy of the 28-300VR yesterday, and I am quite impressed. I spent the day at a plant conservatory, so all of my shooting was either quite close up (with and without 5T diopter, which works very well with this lens, by the way) or within 10-20 feet. It was also mostly at fairly low light levels and I didn’t bother to get out my tripod out of laziness. ;) Also, if I were going to use a tripod, I would normally use pro lenses anyway, so this is a better walk-around test.

              I have used the 70-300VR under similar circumstances many times, and I can make a few comments in comparison:

              - My second 28-300VR is, in fact, quite a bit sharper than my 70-300VR — ESPECIALLY wide open (irony!). The closeup images are pixel sharp at the focus point, which is remarkable considering they were handheld. Not only does this copy resolve to a finer degree, but the micro-contrast is noticeably higher.

              - AF accuracy with my D700 is dead on — probably better than any other lens I have. It matches with liveview perfectly.

              - AF does tend to hunt at 300mm in low light, but the problem is not the frequency of the hunting, but rather the width of the swing (all the way to infinity and back). The swing is wider and often doesn’t re-converge without “help,” and this is poorer than the 70-300VR. This kind of focus hunting is rare on the D700 body. A couple of times, the lens failed to respond to AF-ON and I had to manually defocus to force it to refocus accurately. I’m still trying to figure that one out. Note: I separate focus from shutter depress using AF-ON; people who focus with the shutter button MAY have issues with the camera refusing to shoot because focus isn’t locked, depending on your settings… Not an issue for me.

              - Handling is great; no issues. AF and VR are both quiet. No clicking and pinging from VR as the 70-300VR exhibits. Sometimes that’s bad because I’m not reassured that VR is working and didn’t get bumped off (or that AF didn’t happen).

              In any case, I can confirm that there ARE good copies of this lens (as far as sharpness is concerned), and I’m certainly keeping mine. I have some concerns that this lens may be tricky to use for candid street shooting, and I’m not sure that it would be great for fast moving objects. Although, if you don’t go all the way to 300mm and/or you have good light, I suspect AF-S is going to track well on the pro-ish bodies. Given that my sharpness concerns are alleviated, I will definitely take this lens out on my next street shooting run. I’d like to give it a shot with children portraiture to see if the AF will work well enough. It is certainly sharp enough and AF is accurate enough for portraiture as long as there is enough light to AF…

              This is VERY close to being able to replace my beloved 70-300VR. I also need to take this copy out on a night shooting session. I wasn’t impressed with my first copy (compared to the 70-300VR) because of the sharpness issues, but also because of low-light AF performance. The 70-300VR is great for low-light urban street shooting because of the great high-ISO and AF performance of the D700. On the other hand, I have taken tens of thousands of shots with the 70-300VR and have it’s quirks down pat. It’s not fair to judge a brand-new lens based on inexperience and lack of practice.

              Doug
      • 

        30

        ) JohnM
        October 14, 2010 at 10:54 am

        I got my 28-300mm and was originally going to keep my 70-300mm for sports shooting, but I am now rethinking that. The 28-300mm is so good and has performed so well in the role that the 70-300mm is redundant. It’s clearly sharper at the long end and it doesn’t turn to mush in the corners, either. Say what yo uwill about Ken, but he posted photo comparisons between these two that are hard to argue with. I’ve seen the same exact thing.

        So, I too think something is wrong with Nasim’s copy because his results are not consistent with what I see from the lens. It’s not just the sharpness, either. For example, while I can get bad bokeh out of it in contrived shots, I’ve never seen anything that I’d call “horrible” and in the vast majority of everyday shooting the bokeh looks okay to good. The 18-200mm? That lens has horrible bokeh, pretty much most of the time. I have shot after shot with distracting donut bokeh…

        The 28-300mm is better on just about every front from the DX predecessor. And except for distortion and vignetting, slightly better than the 70-300mm.

        Reply
    • 

      39

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Doug, thank you for posting your test results. I might have certainly obtained a bad copy of the lens, however, given the MTF charts posted by Nikon and some other data that is currently available, I would say that my findings are not too far away.

      Again, I never said that the 28-300mm is a bad lens. I know what to expect of a large zoom lens like this and they certainly do come with problems, like I have indicated in my review. I personally was never a fan of the original 18-200mm lens and I know that this one beats the 18-200mm, especially towards the longer range.

      Please note that sharpness is not the only metric in this case. Things like vignetting, CA, distortion and autofocus performance all contribute to the overall impression that I got from using the lens for a month or so. Hence the conclusion.

      Can you take great pictures with this lens? Absolutely! You could take great pictures with ANY lens. The data I provide should only be used as a reference. If you get frustrated with the wide-open performance of the lens, you can take a look at my test charts and understand that it is normal. If you have lots of distortion and vignetting, again, you can take a look at my tests and understand that it is normal. Should you make your buying decision based on my review? Maybe. If you shoot concerts and wide open performance is important for you, the lens is clearly not a good candidate. If you shoot in daylight all the time and can stop the lens down to f/8.0, maybe it is for you. If you want to only carry one lens and do not want to buy more lenses, the Nikon 28-300mm is definitely worth looking into. Again, it all depends on your needs.

      I personally do not mind carrying multiple lenses wherever I am and the sharpness at large apertures is important for me, because I shoot 99% of the time hand-held. So the 28-300mm is not for me…

      Hope this makes sense :) Let me know if you have any questions!

      Reply
      • 

        48

        ) Doug
        October 15, 2010 at 7:58 am

        Thanks, Nasim. I agree 100% with the assessment of your copy, but I just want to make you aware that for whatever reason, there are much better copies out there, and you should return yours if you still can and keep looking. I would almost certainly not have relied on my first 28-300VR in favor of my 70-300VR for most purposes, but I have no hesitation with using the second copy. This lens is not the limiting factor for sharpness even wide open.

        I should also note that my shooting style may be inverted from yours. I find the “normal” focal length range (35-100mm) to be quite unappealing, and I am always shooting wide (14mm prime or 17-35 at 17) or long (200-300mm). I find the different perspectives to be more appealing for what I do. I used to use a 17-55/2.8 on DX extensively, but when I moved to FX, I never felt the need to replace that range with pro glass because I don’t do any event-type shooting. Don’t get me wrong — if I did events, I’d pick up the 24-70 or the new 24-120/4 in a heartbeat!

        So the 28-70mm “kicker” that the 28-300VR provides is just frosting for me w.r.t. the 70-300VR. The only adders that I love with the 28-300VR are closeup ability and 77mm filter size (love that!). Also, focus breathing doesn’t bother me as long as the magnification is there (compare to 70-200VR!) and CA/vignetting/distortion are also nearly irrelevant for my type of shooting and given trivial automated software corrections. I don’t shoot architecture or interiors for money and would never try to use this lens for such work. :)

        Thanks for your very helpful reviews. Your review is very helpful to the bulk of buyers who need to be aware that they probably won’t get a “great” copy, at least on the first try. Your lens does seem to be typical.

        Doug

        Reply
        • 

          307

          ) Andrew Moore
          March 4, 2012 at 7:50 am

          Hi all very interesting I have a new D7000 with a 18-200 VRII 3.5 -5.6 . I am very pleased with the results but need a longer lens so the 28 – 300 seems very attractive. I was about to swop the 18 -200 in when I read about quality issues – does this effect older lens’s or all lens production. If I buy latest production will I be assured of a perfect lens?
          Nikon have a great reputation but this could at stake if quality control is suspect!

          Reply
12. 

    26

    ) Don
    October 14, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Very interesting Doug. I too was thinking this and decided to format and setup my camera again. As a contact lensglasses wearer, I realized that I had incorrectly set up the diopter incorrectly and was not getting a good focus on many shots. Switched contact lenses, reset diopter and am now ready to try again. Please excuse my novice mistake. I am a bit new at this and the D3s is a pretty serious piece of hardware. Anyway, I am back at square one and will try to shoot this weekend to see how the lens performs.

    Reply
    • 

      42

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 14, 2010 at 12:46 pm

      Don, when you do your tests, instead of acquiring focus through the viewfinder or camera AF, use LiveView. To do the proper corner comparison, set up the test chart straight across from the camera and use the corner of the frame to acquire focus via LiveView. For this, you will need to zoom into the corner and then press the AF button to get the correct focus.

      Depth of field and subject distance play a huge role on performing tests. Acquiring focus on the central point of the chart and then looking at the corners might not be a good test if your setup is not straight.

      Reply
13. 

    28

    ) Don
    October 14, 2010 at 4:44 am

    What I find interesting about the Ken Rockwell review is that he was first sort of against the 28-300 but later on he liked it. His first review was very early days with the lens. Maybe he too got another lens to test.

    Nadeem, you up for another test of another 28-300?

    Reply
    • 

      43

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 14, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      Don, I would love to test another 28-300mm, but I don’t have one.

      If you or anybody else is willing to send me their lens for a test, I would be more than glad to do that. I will pay for the return shipping + insurance myself. I will only need it for 2-3 days.

      Reply
      • 

        45

        ) Don
        October 15, 2010 at 12:54 am

        Hi Naseem,

        I would not mind sending you my 28-300mm but I am in Helsinki, Finland and the cost of sending it with insurance would probably not be worth it. I will try to shoot some this weekend to see if some of my settings contributed to the performance of the lens. Also, I have a friend who works at a retail camera shop. He sold me an older 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 for $400 which is a pretty good deal I imagine. I will also shoot this side by side if the weather holds up. I was contemplating getting the new 24-120mm but he warned against this saying that for the money the older lens offers more value for the money. Yes the newer lens is f4.0 across the range, the older version offers variable from f3.5 to f5.6 for less money. Sort of like a six in one hand, half dozen in an other. :)

        Great site by the way. Appreciate all the advice for the new guys (me especially).

        Reply
      • 

        51

        ) Nicholas
        October 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm

        Hi Naseem,

        I’ve been reading with interest Doug’s comments and that of others regarding the possibility that the IQ (sharpness in particular) on 28-300 may vary greatly from copy to copy.

        While I totally agree with your overall conclusion that no matter how good the 28-300 can get its simply not going to compare to pro zoom glass (24-70 or 70-200) especially wide open, my take from Doug’s comments is that if it compares favorably with say the 70-300 then it really presents some interesting options to consider. For those of us who own pro glass but are loath to lug it around or would like to minimize process of changing lens, particularly when mobility is involved (street shooting, travel) finding a suitable single lens alternative is quite appealing. On the other hand we don’t want that convenience to come with a significant sacrifice in IQ. From my personal perspective it comes down to the “degree” of compromise rather than an absolute one lens is better than the other. BTW I’m really just concerned about sharpness, because most other shortcomings can be corrected in Lightroom and/or Photoshop.

        Also a separate point that I think everyone would agree on, is that if one is going to own/keep this lens certainly one would want to own a “good” copy rather than a bad one, so finding out if in fact there is a material difference between different copies of the 28-300 is something we’d all like to know.

        Now let me turn to my personal experience with the 28-300. I purchased the 28-300 from my local camera store and returned within two days as I found it to be fairly soft and not comparable to my 70-300 let alone the 70-200 VRII. Then a friend of mine who BTW has higher image quality standards than I do…. mentioned having also returned his 28-300 but then purchased a second copy which he indicated he thought was superior to the first. I then decided to get another copy myself. I ordered from B&H and received it 3 days ago. In early test shots with this lens I see a big difference between it and my first copy. In fact I was in the process of wanting to further validate the IQ in order to decide if I want to keep it and sell my 70-300. Personally I like the handling on the 28-300 lens better than the 70-300 and find the build quality to be far superior. I’m not that concerned about losing some reach at 300mm.

        My early favorable impressions regarding the second copy of the 28-300 lens are totally subjective at this point, since I’ve not done any extensive side by side testing. I was planning on doing my own testing over the next week and then decide if I should keep the lens, sell the 70-300 etc. On the other hand what I think I’d rather do is send you my lens so you can test it and share your findings with everyone. If you are still up for it all I would ask is that you perform the test in the 2-3 day period you mention, so that I can get it back in time to still have the option of returning it within B&H’s return window (should the test prove negative…)

        BTW it would also be great if you don’t mind testing the lens versus the 70-300 since I believe there is more than one of us interested in that answer. If you don’t happen to have a copy of the 70-300 I’ll be happy to send you my copy of that lens as well.

        Let me know your thoughts and feel free to email me re sending you the lens. Thanks for your reviews and very informative website.

        Reply
        • 

          54

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          October 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm

          Nicholas, thank you for your feedback regarding the 28-300mm. I would be more than happy to do another test to see if there is a sample variance.

          Is there any chance you can send the 28-300mm to me today? I will send you my address via email, but I need it early next week, so that I can do the test and send the lens back to you by Wednesday or Thursday, since I’m taking off for a 10 day vacation on Friday of next week.

          Reply
          • 

            64

            ) Nicholas
            October 15, 2010 at 3:01 pm

            Hi Nasim,

            I’ll do my best to get the lens out to you this afternoon. I’ll send it FedEX so hopefully you should receive it Monday or Tuesday at the latest. Will confirm shortly.

            I’m very curious to see your findings of how this 28-300 compares with 70-300 and of course how it compares to your earlier copy of 28-300. Thanks for doing the additional testing.

            Reply
            • 

              66

              ) Nicholas
              October 15, 2010 at 5:19 pm

              Nasim,

              28-300 lens is on its way. You’ll have it on Monday before 10:30 AM.

              Cheers,
14. 

    46

    ) Don
    October 15, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Funny. :) Ken Rockwell is quite a character. I do however like his reviews as well sometimes.

    Reply
    • 

      55

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      Don, yes, he does have a few good articles. But you have to learn how to filter some of what he says ;-) Some people take it literally and they start hating him (check out some of the Ken Rockwell jokes on the Internet), while others only read the good stuff and ignore the rest :) I do the latter.

      Reply
15. 

    49

    ) Robert
    October 15, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Ok guys, this is my THIRD (3rd!!!) copy I try here in Italy. The one I bought online (sending back right now for a 24-120), the one a friend of mine bough a couple days after me in a shop and the one I tested in another shop, here where I live. I completely agree with Nasim. It could be a serious problem if Nikon made only 1/10 ok …

    Reply
    • 

      56

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm

      Robert, thanks for sharing! I don’t know what your expectations are, but I would not try anymore…

      Nicholas (above) is kind enough to send me his “good” copy. I will perform additional tests next week and if it truly turns out to be good, I will let you know. If it is the same (which I suspect is the case), then it will just re-confirm my findings.

      Reply
    • 

      71

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 21, 2010 at 11:29 am

      Robert, my findings on the second copy of the lens are posted in the review.

      Reply
16. 

    50

    ) Don
    October 15, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Hello Nasim,

    I am a bonehead. I’ve been spelling your name wrong the entire time and you’ve been a gentleman and let me get away with it. Thanks. :) I have a friend in Kuwait who’s name is spelled similar and I just mixed the two. Forgive. Thanks again.

    Dan, uh Dun, wait, Don. :)

    Reply
    • 

      52

      ) Nicholas
      October 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm

      Nasim,

      My apologies as well. I was reading Don’s post just prior to posting a reply a few minutes ago and I copied his spelling of our name.

      Cheers,

      Reply
      • 

        53

        ) Don
        October 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm

        Hi Nicholas,

        Don’t follow me dude. I will get you lost for sure. :) I am new to the game. I just decided to jump into the deep end of the pool (D3S, 14-24mm, 28-300mm, 24-120mm – gift from a friend, and a Sigma 120-400mm – gift from a friend). I decided to spend all the money now and not later so I am learning as I go.

        Reply
        • 

          58

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          October 15, 2010 at 1:36 pm

          Don, you have some good friends there ;-) The Nikon D3s is a superb camera (I love mine).

          Reply
        • 

          61

          ) Nicholas
          October 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm

          Hi Don,

          Hopefully Nasim will forgive us for butchering his name..You have jumped into the deep end with D3s and 14-24. I have the good fortune of also owning the D3s. Its a a truly remarkable camera. Also the 14-24 is my absloute favorite lens. Wish is was easier to carry around and took filters…If you decide to look into any prime lens might want to look into the new Nikon 85mm F 1.4 G. I’ve only had it for short time but it may ultimately give my 14-24 a run for its money in the favorite lens category.

          Reply
          • 

            59

            ) Nasim Mansurov
            October 15, 2010 at 1:36 pm

            Nicholas, I agree about D3s and 14-24mm – that’s the combo Canonites drool about :) And the new 85mm f/1.4G is excellent.

            Reply
          • 

            62

            ) Don
            October 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm

            Hi Nicholas,

            Thanks for the input. I told my wife that beside taking up cello as a hobby, I wanted to get back into photography so she said to just get what you want and be happy. To date, I am loving the D3s. It is truly amazing. I had originally a D50, then to D80, D300, D300s and now the granddaddy of them all. This camera makes you want to shoot. At one point during the day, I just have to pick it up and do something with it. :) Best money I’ve spent in a long time, minus my cello of course. :)

            Reply
            • 

              60

              ) Nasim Mansurov
              October 15, 2010 at 1:38 pm

              Don, that’s quite an upgrade from D300s, congratulations! Once you go full-frame, there is no coming back… :) LOL
    • 

      57

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 15, 2010 at 1:35 pm

      Don and Nicholas, no worries about the name – many people do that, so I am quite used to it :)

      Reply
17. 

    63

    ) Don
    October 15, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Thanks Nasim,

    I sort of compare the D3s to the “ring” in Lord of the Rings. It makes me want to just use it. In the house, outside, everywhere. I walk around downtown Helsinki with it hanging around my neck on the odd chance something will happen. :)

    Reply
    • 

      72

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 22, 2010 at 12:40 am

      Don, that’s a pretty good comparison…the “precious” :) LOL! Yes, the D3s is like a virus, you just want to keep on using it and the images infect other people, especially other photographers.

      Reply
18. 

    65

    ) Dennis
    October 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Thanks for the review, Nasim.

    Is a nice lens but too heavy and i prefer 70-300mm in terms of performance. The bokeh of this 28-300mm is quite horrible. Now I can focus on other lens.

    Reply
    • 

      73

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 22, 2010 at 12:40 am

      You are most welcome Dennis!

      Reply
19. 

    67

    ) Del-Uks
    October 16, 2010 at 7:24 am

    We’re talking a lot about how the Nikkor 28-300 performs against the (much beloved) Nikkor 70-300 here.

    Have you guys tried the new Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC Ultra Silent Drive ?

    Most of the reviews I’ve read recently say the Tamron is THE new benchmark in term of sharpness and contrast (especially against the Nikkor @ 300mm). f/4 @ 70mm might be an advantage too.

    Reply
    • 

      74

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 22, 2010 at 12:41 am

      Del-Uks, it is interesting to hear about the Tamron – wonder how well it compares with the Nikon 70-300mm…

      Reply
20. 

    68

    ) LoneBear
    October 18, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Thanks Nasim for soooo hard work on testing these lenses.

    I’m also frightened about how more and more lenses (prime lenses sometimes) have not 10/10 quality on brands like Nikon or Canon. To make them on China or Thailand wouldn’t be a sign of less quality… but I’m writing daily on a Nikon forum in Spain and many users often told about getting bad samples when shopping new photo gear.
    I wait with expectation your second test with other sample of this 28-300VR.

    That said. Lenses like this 28-300VR are made for all purposes snapshots, not for look images they done at 100% on our HD monitors!! When we want for high quality images, we take our 24-70/2.8 & 70-200VR and MTF charts will rise up to the ceiling!! For everithing else, a 28-300VR will be a polyvalent tool on travels, mountain, hiking or so…

    One more thing… when working with lenses like this, we can take advantage of software like DxO Optics Pro, that AUTOMATICALLY (also on batch mode) corrects lenses defaults (vigneting, distorsion, AC’s) via plugins: We must download our camera model and lenses plugins, then software via EXIF detects them and corrects perfectly without no work from our part! And it works!!

    Best regards from Spain

    Reply
    • 

      69

      ) KSPGM
      October 20, 2010 at 11:08 am

      Hi again Nasim,

      Thankyou for the second test results of Nicholas’ lens. Just one question: “why did you not repeat the 300 mm long distance comparison which you made with the 55-300 in your first series of tests?”

      My own findings, now based on many, many shots in many varied conditions is that the 28-300 is simply superb over the whole range and is indeed the equal of the 70-300 in terms of sharpness and IQ – even when compairing at infinity (300 mm on both lenses). I’m still not sure if it is as useful with moving objects as it does perhaps have slower image acquisition – but this may be a result of the longer range over which it is searching. If the 28-300 were prefocused before using AF would this improove this aspect of its performance? When I have the chance to carry out some action shots I’ll report my findings.

      But in summary “I’m with Ken R!”. This is the liberating lens I have been looking for. I’ll only be lugging around my f/2.8 lenses when i’m either going out specifically to do pure macro or action shooting. On almost all other occassions I think the 28-300 does the job – not perfect it’s true – but near enough for my purposes. And on my d300s it fits in a Muffin Top 4000 camera case that is about 8″x8″x6″!

      Reply
      • 

        70

        ) KSPGM
        October 21, 2010 at 4:58 am

        … in case I was not clear, I meant compare the 28-300 to the 70-300 at 300 mm on both lenses!

        Thanks again for your interesting reviews Nasim

        Reply
        • 

          77

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          October 22, 2010 at 1:13 am

          The results are posted on page 10. There is one thing to note though – the first test was performed on a DX sensor, while the second one was done on FX. I wonder if this lens suffers from focusing problems when shooting on DX, or I had a bad sample, or I focused incorrectly during the first test! :)

          Either way, I feel that I now need to remove this specific comparison on the 55-300mm page.

          Reply
          • 

            78

            ) KSPGM
            October 22, 2010 at 5:21 am

            Thanks Nasim,

            I can cofirm that my comparison between the 28-300 and 70-300 was on a DX300s – so there is not a DX ‘issue’ on the two copies we are comparing! I think your estimation of the 28-300 is now in line with my own. Thus:

            On a D300s (probably also on a D90 or D5000) it is superior in all aspects to the older 18-200 in the overlapping focal ranges (28-200). It is also the equal of the 70-300 in terms of IQ. However, the 70-300 has the edge on AF speed (unless as KR suggests, the 28-300 is prefocused to cut down its travel?) and finally the 28-300 has a marked focus breathing characteristic (not unlike the new 70-200!).

            In respect of the focus breathing I do not have a problem. I am able to shoot stunning macro shot from around 4 feet and capture details on birds at long distance. All of the relatively close up shots I have made are of almost equal, and excellent, sharpness, accross the entire focal range. f/8 is particularly good throughout. The bokeh is excellent and colour contrast superb. I have to say I’m very pleased. For my type of photography this is the one-stop shop!

            For those (and there are those out there!) who say 28 mm is not wide enough on DX, let me say “not wide enough for YOU!” It’s fine for me! And anyway, if I want wide I can carry my 12-24 f/4 as well: Does the whole job! Incidentally, when I had the 18-200 I used to use it as a 24-150 lens – I didn’t need wide and it got too soft towards 200mm. The 28-300 seems sharp end-to-end.

            Thanks again Nasim for your insight on this intersting journey of learning about a new lens!

            Reply
      • 

        76

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        October 22, 2010 at 12:53 am

        KSPGM, I did repeat the long distance comparison – I have just not posted it yet :)

        The second lens did not have a focus problem at 300mm like the first one – the images are sharp enough at the long end.

        Reply
    • 

      75

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      October 22, 2010 at 12:47 am

      LoneBear, the second lens review is posted as a separate page right here. It is unfortunate that people get bad samples, although I have personally had only one case when the lens did not perform as good as it should have when compared to MTF charts and other data.

      When it comes to DX lenses, they certainly do have lower thresholds in terms of performance and QA when compared to pro-level lenses. Considering the range the 28-300mm covers, I would not expect too much out of it in first place though…and yes, I know that DxO can automatically correct lens problems, but it is still another process to run during import…

      Reply
21. 

    80

    ) Valerie R.
    October 24, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    After taking a few shots with the 28-300, I don’t see how any FX user would consider it. I get better image quality on my point and shoot (okay, it happens to be a Leica X1) – why would I want to carry several thousand dollars worth of gear, and not get the image quality my gear is capable of? If a 108 pound woman (me) can carry around a D3 with 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses, so can all you guys…man up, or go buy one of those dainty little P&S models if you can’t cut it… :)

    Reply
    • 

      81

      ) Doug
      October 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm

      Valerie:

      You are definitely not seeing representative results. Either you have a terrible copy of the lens, or there is an adjustment or technique error. I would strongly urge you to exchange your lens. Even a bad copy of the lens should easily render images that are far better than a P&S, even a Leica.

      Don’t get me wrong — my Canon G12 is a lot better for many tasks that a comparatively massive D700+28-300VR, but there are a lot of situations where I want the flexibility and control of my D700 without the bulk of carrying pro lenses or the inconvenience of swapping lenses.

      Reply
      • 

        82

        ) Don
        October 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm

        Agreed. I have a D3s, 14-24mm, 24-120mm, the 28-300mm, and a 50mm that are residing in my bag. When the mood hits me, I carry the 120-400 Sigma as well. So it is not a matter of heft. My copy of the 28-300mm works flawlessly. Doug hit the nail on the head. You might have a bad copy.

        Reply
      • 

        98

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        November 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm

        Doug, she shoots with the 14-24mm, 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses, so I think her expectations were set too high ;-)

        Reply
    • 

      97

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm

      Valerie, I think you had a bad sample of the lens – it should not look that bad. On the other hand, if you are already used to the performance of the 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, then you would certainly find the 28-300mm to be much worse in comparison.

      Reply
22. 

    83

    ) PT
    October 25, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Hi Nasim,
    First of all I would like to thank you very much for all your effort in educating the photo community at large and being so dedicated to this blog. I was reading thru the wealth of information on this blog and don’t know of a better support group than this.

    I am an amateur and kind of new into DSLR. I have had a D90 with 18-105mm default lens for a year. I am now comfortable with the camera and it’s setting . I want to expand to a telephoto capable for some nature and sport related (my own kids:) but at the same time want a wide angle as well for family. I have read your review on the 28-300mm or 55-300 and other such lens. I was not able to come up with a clear winner in terms of sharpness and quality from your posts.

    What do you recommend if I have to buy one quality lens for now to add to my 18-105mm (not that it s a great lens:).

    Much appreciate your advice.
    -PT

    Reply
    • 

      84

      ) Doug
      October 25, 2010 at 9:36 am

      Being an FX shooter (D700), I don’t really follow the reviews for the DX lenses closely. However, I would urge you to check reviews carefully and make sure the comparisons were done on DX. Your D90 is much more demanding in terms of resolution than my D700 because of the smaller sensor with more densely-packed pixels.

      My personal guess is that the 28-300VR would NOT be stellar on DX, but it may be adequate. I have no idea whether the 55-300 could beat it, but most likely it will match the performance in a much more compact and cheaper package. Of course, you also get true AF-S (with focus override, no front element rotation with focus, etc.), 77mm filter size, and better build quality. Just like the 70-300VR, you should probably avoid going much beyond 200mm with the 28-300VR whenever possible for maximum sharpness (unless you an stop down to f/8). The 28-300VR will hold its value better and will be a better investment if you ever plan to move to FX (which is doubtful given the way the DX technology curve is going).

      Good luck with your decision. Since none of these lenses are stellar, my best guess is that you’d be better off with saving money and going with the 55-300 unless you really value the 77mm filter size (as I do) or you plan to move to FX in the future.

      Reply
      • 

        85

        ) PT
        October 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm

        Thanks Doug. Originally I set out to take a look at 18-200mm. Then I started reading on the other ones I stated. So you think 28-300mm is a better lens than 18-200mm (cost not being a factor)? Also am understanding that the new 28-300 is a lens made for FX (can be used on DX as well) and can have a better resale vaule, correct?

        Reply
        • 

          86

          ) Doug
          October 25, 2010 at 12:34 pm

          I have not seen a definitive test of the 18-200VR against the 28-300VR, both on DX. The 28-300VR on FX seems to consistently test better than the 18-200VR on DX; however, that doesn’t mean the 28-300VR will be sharper at 200mm (especially) on DX. My guess is that it will.

          Yes, FX lenses can work on DX cameras. In my opinion, the higher grade (semi-pro build) 28-300VR will likely hold resale value very well.

          Keep in mind that 28mm is not all that wide angle on DX. That’s why people like the 18-200VR’s zoom range so much. The ideal companion for the 28-300VR would be the fantastic Nikon 10-24 or the very good Sigma 10-20 (which I used on DX for a long time before switching to FX).

          Reply
          • 

            102

            ) Nasim Mansurov
            November 17, 2010 at 12:18 pm

            Doug, the 18-200mm vs 28-300mm test on this review was performed on a DX body.

            Reply
        • 

          101

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          November 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm

          PT, the 28-300mm is not better than the 18-200mm when you compare them on a DX body – see the review above. Plus, you will lose the 10mm focal length on the wide side, which is a huge difference in terms of angle of view.

          Reply
      • 

        100

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        November 17, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        Doug, I agree with what you have said. I think the 55-300mm or the 70-300mm would be a better value for him.

        Reply
    • 

      99

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm

      PT, I apologize for a late reply. I don’t think you will see much improvement by switching from the 18-105mm to the 28-300mm. In addition, you will lose the wider angle that you currently have. If you are looking for a good telephoto lens for sports and need the reach, I believe the 70-300mm will be a better choice for your longer shots. Plus, it is much cheaper than the 28-300mm.

      Reply
23. 

    87

    ) Eugene Stevens
    October 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Thank you for your efforts. Having lugged my 2.8 lenses(14-24, 28-70, 80-200) plus my 80-400 VR to France for a wedding and vacation, I have been considering the 28-300 to replace the last three lenses enumerated above for my travels (5 plane flights in 23 days – non photographic business trip). With the 14-28, an 85 1.4 and this 28-300 on my D700 I could reduce the weight of my carry-on bag and not take my Thinktank roll on bag as my carry on. i would envision carrying the 28-300 (using F 8or higher) only going to work and the 85 1.4 for dinner travel (possibly the 50 1.4 as well). i would then utilize the 14-24 lens for my weekend site-seeing and HDR photography shots. After reading your review I am reconsidering and taking my 14-24, 80-200 (2.8s) and my 85 1.4 with a 2x extender when I really need 300 mm or 28-48. Would an extender provide slimilar results to your review? Thoughts.

    Reply
    • 

      88

      ) Don
      October 25, 2010 at 1:52 pm

      Hi Eugene,

      If it’s of any consolation. I have a similar setup. I have the: 14-24mm, 24-120mm, a 50mm, 28-300mm, and a Sigma 120-400mm. Used to lug it all. Now I roll only with the 28-300mm and the 14-24mm. These lenses combined with the weight of the D3s are enough and not sooo bad as before. Many here have mixed reviews regarding the 28-300mm. I have nothing but respect for it. I am pleased with the way it performs. It is not a night lens unless you schlepp a tripod along but if you want to run around light, the 28-300mm is great.

      Reply
      • 

        104

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        November 17, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        Don, thank you for your feedback! Certainly, if weight is an issue, the 28-300mm seems to be a good candidate for general photography, like its 18-200mm counterpart.

        Reply
    • 

      103

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 17, 2010 at 12:21 pm

      Eugene, the 2x extender only works on certain Nikon lenses. In your case, the only lens that will accept a 2x TC is your Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. I know that the TC-20E III works great with the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, but I am not sure how it would work on the old 80-200mm…

      Reply
24. 

    89

    ) Jocelyn
    October 25, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Hi,
    Thankyou to everyone for sharing your various experiences about the 28-300mm.

    Can you clarify in your conclusion if you did or not the EDIT concerning the comparison to the 55-300mm who says;…-However, when I shot distant objects at infinity, the lens performed quite poorly above 200mm, especially at 300mm (as shown on the first page and in the Nikon 55-300mm comparison. Your samples have been taken at 300mm f/10 infinity).

    In reference to page #8 where you say in the EDIT: The above turned out to be a bad sample – the second copy of the 28-300mm that I tested did not have this problem.

    Reply
    • 

      94

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 10, 2010 at 4:42 pm

      Jocelyn, the second copy did not seem to have this problem when I tested it, but to be honest, I only had it for less than a day. So I did not do any rigorous AF testing with the second sample. Hopefully, more 28-300mm owners will report their findings with AF performance on the long end.

      Reply
      • 

        95

        ) Doug
        November 10, 2010 at 8:53 pm

        Based on two copies (first one with terrible sharpness, but the second one with stellar sharpness), I can definitely confirm that AF performance is an issue at the long end and in low light. The difference between low light AF compared to the 70-300VR is significant.

        In general, the 28-300VR is (comparatively) not a great night shooting lens, not only because of the AF performance challenges, but because of the shallow lens hood (necessitated by the 28mm wide end, obviously), which results in a propensity for flare. This is unfortunately, but not a showstopper when you consider the amazing flexibility and optical quality (once you get a good copy!).

        My experience and lots of online reports make it clear that you need to test this lens carefully and don’t hesitate to exchange until you get a good copy. There is definitely a major sample variation issue. I’ve never encountered anything like this with Nikon before, and this is the first lens I ever returned.

        Doug

        Reply
        • 

          105

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          November 17, 2010 at 12:25 pm

          Doug, thank you so much for your feedback – it is very helpful!

          I too never had issues with my Nikon lenses and it is unfortunate to hear about so many bad samples out there…Nikon needs to put their act together and control their QA process tighter!

          Reply
25. 

    90

    ) Mike Behnken
    October 27, 2010 at 1:39 am

    Wow, very thorough review… I was thinking of getting rid of my 70-200m VR and lightening my load with this one but I have decided not to….

    I questions this, “equivalent to a 42-450mm lens – not a very useful range to work”

    How is 42-450mm NOT a useful range?

    Reply
    • 

      106

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 17, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Mike, thank you for your feedback!

      You probably did not pay much attention to the rest of the sentence, where it says “especially on the short end” – I meant to say that 42mm is not very useful for wide-angle shots…it is just too long on DX.

      Reply
26. 

    91

    ) Eugene Stevens
    October 28, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    I did purchase the lens and I have taken 2 sets of photos with it. The Horse show was at the DC MCI Center and I got photos of the horses in the street. These are here http://www.clarityphotos.com/sports/WashingtonDCHorseWeb/index.html . The previous day I took photos that have been annotated with the lens settings for more than 1/3 of the shots and these are located here. http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Test-Shots . I have decided based on these shots not to take three other lenses (2 are 2.8 and one VR) on my 5 flight business trip (no photo assignments).

    Reply
    • 

      107

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 17, 2010 at 12:28 pm

      Eugene, I’m glad you like your copy of the 28-300mm – certainly valuable feedback for others to see.

      Reply
27. 

    92

    ) Chuck
    November 7, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I also disagree about the focal range being less than useful on a DX camera. I use a D90, and am replacing my 18-200 with the 28-300. The majority of my shots, whether street scenes or nature/animals, are usually above 70mm. The widest end of the range is almost useless for me, and the extra reach of the 300mm makes it much more useful for when the 200mm comes up short. For years my “walking around” lens was my 80-200 f/2.8 D ED, but it gets heavy and is too conspicuous for street photos.

    Ideally, I’d love to have an 18-400mm f/2.8 that was the same size as the 18-200, but since that will never happen, I think the 28-300 fits my shooting style better than the 18-200, even on my DX format D90.

    Reply
    • 

      93

      ) Don
      November 7, 2010 at 11:56 am

      Hi Chuck,

      What I think we have here are serious/purists when it comes to photography. I get this with my cello instructor. She hates my carbon fiber bow. Says I need a wooden one. She gives all of the technical reasons behind it but in the end she says if I am happy with it and can produce a good tone why worry about it. I think the same analogy applies here. You have the purists who are technically correct in their answers and I agree with them, however sometimes you have to go with what works for you as long as you are getting the results you desire. I had the chance to get the new 24-120mm f4 or the older 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 for more than half the money. I went for the cheaper lens and for me, I am more than happy with the results. The lens performs the way I want, I have not had any problems and I saved myself quite a bit of change to boot. Purchasing the 24-120mm f4 was never a problem due to cash, but why bother when I can get a lens that for me is equally as good at more than half the price?

      Reply
      • 

        109

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        November 17, 2010 at 12:35 pm

        Don, I totally agree with everything you have said here – you need to get what works for you. I did not like the lens, because it did not fit my style and my demands. Does it mean that it is a bad lens? Of course not! If weight was an issue for me and I did not want to change lenses, I would have certainly considered the 28-300mm for my photography. You just have to evaluate what is important for you and make decisions based on that…

        If you are happy with the results you get, who cares if somebody else does not like it? As long as you like it and you are pleased with it – that’s what truly matters.

        Reply
    • 

      108

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      November 17, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      Chuck, when I said about the focal range on DX, I meant to point out that 42mm is just too long for wide angles. This is not a problem if you only shoot at longer focal lengths, but certainly a problem for me, since I use the wider side more than the telephoto…

      Reply
28. 

    110

    ) Dan
    December 5, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Right now I have a Nikon 55-200mm on my D300s (DX System)- wondering how to compare the zoom capability of the two – will this 28-300 be able to zoom in significantly further in or out, or are they almost the same due to one being configured for FX system… essentially I have read enough to become confused and dizzy and would immensely appreciate a guiding hand to set me back on the straight path to understanding comparing zoom capability between these two lenses.

    Many thanks – know you must be absolutely swamped with dumb questions like these but the only question you regret asking is the one you never ask…

    -Dan

    Reply
    • 

      111

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      December 7, 2010 at 8:41 pm

      Dan, it depends on the subject distance. For close subjects, the 28-300mm is going to be very similar to your 55-200mm lens, due to the “lens breathing” issue. For far subjects, it will certainly give you more reach. On the short end, it will be significantly wider than the 55-200mm lens.

      When it comes to field of view, you have to multiply both 55-200mm and 28-300mm by 1.5 to get a comparable field of view on DX, since 55-200mm and 28-300mm are “true” focal lengths.

      Reply
29. 

    112

    ) Delanio Andre Gray
    December 13, 2010 at 4:02 am

    This lens was never made out to be a professional lens so why even mention it in the same sentence as pro lenses? I personally own the 24 f1.4, 85 f1.4, Nikon 200 f2, 300 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and would never ever expect a 10.7 zoom to be anywhere near the performance of any of these. I did purchase the 28-300 vr for its ability to be on a camera body all the time while traveling and not missing shots and am very happy with its performance thus far. For someone on a budget or just starting out this would be fantastic to have. And you have posted good work with it here so perhaps I’m missing your point. Comparing it against similar offerings from Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma would have been far more appropriate I would think and helpful to many novices who tend to seek out review sites before buying. Thank you for your time.

    Reply
    • 

      128

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 4:35 pm

      Delanio, given its price, weight and size, why not compare it with other pro-level lenses? Some people think that this lens replaces all other lenses they have, which is simply not true. Sure, it might be a good travel and all-around lens like the 18-200mm, but one needs to fully understand its limitations first (which is what I tried to do in this review). Please take a look at the last part of my conclusion. I don’t think many novices will be looking at a $1,000 FX lens, since most of them shoot with a DX body, so this lens is clearly not for beginners.

      Reply
      • 

        132

        ) LOU
        January 5, 2011 at 4:53 pm

        Great points, Nasim. And they speak to the substance of your rigorous testing. Most people in the market, for the 28-300 – like Mr. Gray alludes – probably own some pro Nikkors, and they’re seeking benchmarks for the performance of the all-in-one versus the “all-of-one”, much as the 18-200 was compared to pro Nikkors when only dx existed. I think Nikon has a winner on their hands with the now-cheaper 28-300, and most users indicate it performs well enough/better-than expected to make them happy, vis-a-vis their “pro” glass. Mine will be here next week, so I can draw first-hand conclusions.

        Reply
        • 

          158

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm

          LOU, would love to hear from you once you get the lens. Good luck and I hope you get a good sample!

          Reply
      • 

        145

        ) Delanio Andre Gray
        January 6, 2011 at 3:32 am

        My concern is with this lens being dismissed out of hand simply because of what it was compared against. $1000 dollars was once a lot of money but now will not get you much in the “pro” category and I feel that only a novice would not know this when speaking of Nikon lenses. We have all fielded the questions from our friends about why two lenses that both go to 300mm cost so differently when one is a zoom and the other is a F2.8 prime. You can get some decent third party glass for $1000 but not Nikon glass.

        As I said I have been most pleased with mine and have gotten some impressive images. Its close focusing attributes alone have been wonderful when out just roaming around. If you just broke the bank on a D700 and could only afford a 50 f1.8 you could grab this for $1000 and produce good work in a variety of different situation and this convenience along with the quality of this len is unprecedented. I wasn’t knocking your well done review, I was simply questioning the caliber of the comparison set. But honestly at present there isn’t much that can be compared directly against it all things consider. Can it compete against my fast primes listed above? Of course not at the fast end but it narrows a lot at f8 -f11.

        I say again I am not knocking your well done review. Keep up the excellent work my friend and Happy New Year to you and yours.

        Reply
        • 

          159

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 2:10 pm

          Delanio, thank you and Happy New Year to you and your family too!

          I agree that it is unfair to compare the 28-300mm to pro-level lenses – I even said this in my review. If you read Don’s comment below, he brilliantly defined the lens in one word – compromise. The main point I was trying to make, was that the 28-300mm does not replace pro glass. It is a great compromise when weight and carrying multiple lenses are a problem. And those that liked the 18-200mm will definitely like the 28-300mm…

          Reply
          • 

            163

            ) Delanio Andre Gray
            January 7, 2011 at 12:50 am

            Thank you as well Nasim.

            If people read your review and take the time to go through some of the comments they should most definitely have an excellent idea as to whether or not the lens will be a fit for them and their style of shooting. You do excellent work here and can be proud of the contribution that you are making to the craft. Take care.

            Reply
            • 

              164

              ) Nasim Mansurov
              January 7, 2011 at 11:59 am

              Thank you Sir, have a great weekend!
30. 

    113

    ) Geno EJ Sajko
    December 13, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Help. Going on an African safari. Which one lens do I take and which camera to take. Subjects… Animals and landscapes – problem with one lens if not wide enough and not long enough.

    Have an Oly E3 and many lenses, Nikon D700 and 24-70, 70-200, 85.

    My thinking so far…

    D700 and buy a one lens does it all for travel, eg 28-300… great low light camera
    OR
    Buy a D300s (want it for a D700 backup anyway) and ones lens does it all for travel, eg 28-300… small sensor extends my range
    OR

    I’ve read so many opinions, dark lenses trying to focus on animals, etc. etc.

    It is a once in a lifetime trip, weight restrictions and amount of stuff I can take is small, so I am forced into one lens to do it all (but may bring the 85 1.4 along anyway). I want the best of all worlds, landscape (wide0 shooting), animal (long shooting). I can bring a pocket G10 that can shoot raw for the wide shots?

    THANKS.

    Reply
    • 

      129

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      Geno, I would take your 70-200mm, along with the 24-70mm to the Safari trip. If you don’t want to swap lenses, keep the 24-70mm on your D700 and get a D300s/D7000 for your 70-200mm. If you have the VR II version of the 70-200mm, get a 1.7x TC II or 2.0x TC III to go with it. You will need the reach! It is a once in a lifetime trip, so take quality lenses with you.

      Reply
31. 

    114

    ) Geno EJ Sajko
    December 13, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Oops, my last OR… had text in brackets that got stripped…

    OR
    Suggest something totally different…

    Reply
32. 

    115

    ) Eugene Stevens
    December 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Geno, I was in a similar situation and my 6 hour walk around Pompei was just done with the 28-300 lens. My back and knees would not have held up with all my gear on my back. All the photos on my web site for Pompei were done with that lens. See the images for yourself and determine whether you think the lens detracted the images. http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Pompei/pom-21617181920/1108533793_Eap6t-L.jpg . I left my 2.8 zooms (except my 14-24) at home for the three week trip and I do not regret that decision.

    Reply
    • 

      130

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 4:40 pm

      Eugene, Geno will be sitting in a vehicle most of the time, so weight is not an issue for him.

      Reply
33. 

    116

    ) Eugene Stevens
    December 14, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Sorry about the above. To navigate and see all the Pompei images delete everything after Italy in the above link or go here http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/ and select Pompei . A lot of the shots in Rome were also done with that lens and the others were with the 14-24 lens.

    Reply
    • 

      117

      ) Geno EJ Sajko
      December 14, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      Thanks Eugene, nice images, love the head standers. It has helped me in my decision to get it. What camera did you have it on?

      Reply
      • 

        118

        ) Don
        December 14, 2010 at 5:46 pm

        Hi Geno,

        I would like to chime in that the 28-300 is a great lens. I have had none of the problems that others have had here. I have mine mounted to a D3s and it stays there unless I pull it off to put the 14-24mm on. It is a very versatile lens and just performs. It tracks well and locks up great when autofocusing. Maybe it’s just me that I do not go out too far in the weeds and just like things that work. Anyway, enjoy the trip, enjoy the lens, and post a few if you like.

        Cheers,

        Don

        Reply
      • 

        120

        ) Eugene Stevens
        December 15, 2010 at 10:20 am

        Thanks for the kind words. I upgraded my Fuji S5 (D200 Body) to the D700 at least a year ago. The D700 with its FX lens is really nice and it lets me significantly crop my sports photos without significantly reducing the quality. The head standers are a couple of young kids (~24) with the lady just having gotten a full time job with us. Her fiancee is a Stuntman and they are a little on the wild side. I told her that she needs to tell her fiancee that he needs to work to catch up to her level (former gymnast and dancer). The Italian police were not too happy with them but I thought it made a nice photo.

        Reply
    • 

      119

      ) Don
      December 14, 2010 at 5:47 pm

      Nice shots Eugene. Like you I am moving to make my hobby somewhat of a profession after 30 plus years of govt work.

      Reply
    • 

      131

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 4:50 pm

      Eugene, just my 2 cents on your images from Italy. It looks like you are using HDR a lot, which is quite noticeable in your images. Some of the images are blurry and in some, you could see two images (bad image alignment or wind). In some other images, your camera is not properly aligned – using the lines inside your viewfinder or using a level would have helped. The rest of the images look good, seems like you had a blast in Italy! Please accept this as feedback, not criticism towards your work :)

      Reply
34. 

    121

    ) DenMas
    December 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    Hi,

    I like to thank you for the review and i have this 28-300mm since 2 month ago and im not regret it every penny i spend for it.

    br

    Reply
35. 

    122

    ) LOU
    January 1, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Wow, it looks like this lens has generated 10x reader feedback, too! Thanks for all the hard work you put into your reviews, Nasim. Can you say “definitive”?! If I was on the 28-300 fence before, it may now be a fence of barbed wire! I tried an 18-200 for a weekend last year. I craved the all-in-one solution for various outings, as the compact accessory to my 200-400 at air shows, etc. What I found was that the 18-200 lens to be nearly useless at 200mm & infinity. Assuming the 28-300 will leave the same conclusion? What good is 300mm if you need to treat it like 180mm @ 8′ for decent results?

    Yes, lugging around multiple 2.8 zooms a pain. For anyone who thinks this 28-300 oversized, try the D3s/14-200 2.8 bag on the tarmac for eight hours. My take: The 28-300 the “pick-up truck” of photography. It’s designed for self-contained, efficient, everyday utility. But, if you want/need ultimate performance, it won’t challenge the Porche you crave.

    Sample variations are Nikon’s issue de juer; Canon’s, too. I returned two 24-70′s & two 70-200′s.

    Also, so much of this comes down to individual shooting practices. If you’re outdoors, in daylight and on the move, it’s a good/great solution vs. shouldering two bodies like the PJ of old. And, many may be impeded by all that range in one lens. I was. I found myself presetting the test 18-200 to my favorite focal lengths and moving my body more.

    Hope this helps.

    Reply
    • 

      123

      ) Doug
      January 1, 2011 at 2:41 pm

      Not entirely true… What has been confirmed is that the sample variation on this lens is significant. I got a very bad copy initially, but when I returned it and got a second copy, I was simply stunned. My new copy is not without its flaws, but it is extremely sharp on FX at all focal lengths for closeup and shorter focus distances (out to at least 20 feet away). Wide open, mine is not so sharp at infinity, although that is often more due to flare to which lenses of this type are extremely prone. See this sample at 300mm, f/5.6:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5079875658/in/set-72157624886682826/

      Click on the image then “View All Sizes” to see 100%. You can also find many images taken with this lens with the tag 28300vr.

      Now, of course, 300mm on a superzoom isn’t really 300mm for close focus distances, but I find that to be a non-issue since I can get the magnifications that I want at all reasonable working distances.

      As Nasim has pointed out, this lens is a bit fussier for AF at 300mm in low light, even on FX bodies. That’s probably the single biggest issue that you need to get used to (by either assisting focus manually or zooming out for initial AF, then refine @ 300mm. I do agree that the 70-300VR is better in this regard. However, my 2nd 28-300VR has become my travel lens of choice because it is sharper than my 70-300VR by a good margin from 200-300mm and at close focus distances.

      So, if you decide to pursue this lens, you’ll have to plan on shopping around and testing the heck out of the copies you find. I hope you get a copy as good as mine!

      Doug

      Reply
      • 

        124

        ) LOU
        January 1, 2011 at 3:53 pm

        Me, too…

        Anyway, I’m not disputing “sample variation”anomalies, nor am I qualifying acceptable lens quality based upon intended end use, if that’s what you took away from my comments. Heck, I’ve never even used a test chart in twenty-plus years of shooting; newspapers & brick walls suffice. I’m just tired of lugging my pro lenses to personal shoots, so the 28-300 could be the antidote; the 18-200 wasn’t.

        At infinity, & at max. focal length, most zooms are at their weakest, and this is “entirely true”. My “test” with the 18-200, for example, was in real-world shooting, against my now-departed 200-400. Both are weakest at distance & max. mm, even at $6K for the latter lens, which is why it went bye, bye. Still, the 18-200 revealed its far-lower price tag – immediately & overtly – on similar subject matter & distance. Sample variation won’t account for this, unless a complete lemon involved. Wide open & infinity not usually a real-world shooting combo, so we’re all safe on this count.

        I’m glad you’re happy with your retained 28-300 sample. It gives me hope that the one I get will impress as well. The lens has been in production several months now, so odds are the “best practices” assembly tolerances have been tightened. Thanks.

        Reply
        • 

          134

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          January 5, 2011 at 5:02 pm

          LOU, when I take my camera on personal shoots, I take the 24-70mm with me, along with a lightweight prime like the 50mm f/1.4G…

          Reply
          • 

            140

            ) LOU
            January 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm

            Yep, it goes back to shooting style. I almost never shoot at 50, but I love 80 & up/35 & down. I’m considering selling the 24-70 for the 85, now that it’s reached modern standards. Shallow DOF the main magic of seeing photographically – at least for me. Thanks Nasim.

            Reply
            • 

              141

              ) Geno EJ Sajko
              January 5, 2011 at 5:32 pm

              I have the 85mm 1.4, older version, got it a couple of years ago. SWEET!!!!! Not sure how much better the new one can be. Shooting wide open – hard to get enough dof at times.
    • 

      133

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 4:59 pm

      LOU, that was one of the reasons why I did not like this lens. The first copy of the lens could not focus properly at long ranges and while the second one was better, it was still not 100% reliable, especially in low light.

      And I totally agree with what you said about individual shooting practices.

      Again, the 28-300mm is not a bad lens. As Doug pointed out several times, he definitely likes his copy. I personally did not like the lens because it does not suit my needs (I never liked the 18-200mm lens either). But for others, the 28-300mm is a great choice as a one lens solution…

      Reply
36. 

    125

    ) Jaime
    January 2, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Hello,
    I recently upgraded from a 6 year old D50 to a D700 this Christmas. The lens I have been using on my D700 is the 50mm 1.4 which is pure magic! Of course I need some zoom as well and got the 28-300mm this weekend. Wow, what a disappointment! I spent the past two days taking test pictures at different focal lengths and settings and the quality is so-so. Maybe it’s me? The images produced are no better than what I got on my D50 with a kit lens. Or perhaps I am spoiled from bokeh produced from my 50mm 1.4? I don’t know… but $1,000 on something I don’t like is a crime so I’m taking it back tomorrow. Thinking the 24-70mm might be a better choice for an “all around” lens?

    Thanks so much!
    Jaime

    Reply
    • 

      135

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 5:05 pm

      Jaime, it would certainly be unfair to compare the 28-300mm to the 50mm f/1.4G, since those are two completely different lenses for different needs :) If sharpness is important for you, then yes, the 24-70mm is going to be much sharper.

      Reply
37. 

    126

    ) Lou
    January 2, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Oh, no, not more 28-300 sour grapes. I was just getting ready to pull the trigger.

    Lou chiming in, again…

    The 50 a tough comparison. It’s not really a fair comparison, but that shouldn’t matter, right? I’ve had the 24-70 for about 12 months; it replaced my cumbersome 28-70. It’s still apples-oranges between the 24-70 & the 28-300 – they’re two different animals. Neither is lightweight, but the extra weight vs. versatility lacking in the faster 24-70 makes me wonder what its intrinsic value might be. Yes, it’s a fine zoom, but it’s heavy & you already have an “all around” 50. I don’t know what your shooting needs/style are, but you may want to try an 85 1.8 or 1.4 (used) and a 14-24 (used) or 16-35 zoom, instead of a heavy, pricy 10x zoom. The 100 macro also adds a lot of versatility, and is a great people-shooting focal length. Nikon may be introducing a 70-200 F:4, which is just speculation now, but it would be my first recommendation if it existed today. Canon’s version is wonderful, and it’s SO much lighter than a 2.8. Hope this helps.

    Reply
    • 

      127

      ) Jaime
      January 2, 2011 at 8:47 pm

      Thanks Lou!
      I’m not a professional, but I love taking pictures. Mostly they are of my three children and our adventures. My fixed 50 became a challenge when I tried to get pictures at a park and couldn’t get close enough physically. Also, looking for something that would be good say walking around New York or general travel. I’m not so much concerned about the weight of the lens… I’d rather have great pictures. Also what I buy now I want to last me many years…
      Thanks for your advice!
      Jaime

      Reply
      • 

        137

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        January 5, 2011 at 5:08 pm

        Jaime, since you shoot with an FX camera, I would go with the 24-70mm instead. Another thing you can do, is try another 28-300mm and see if you get a better sample (read some of the comments above about sample variation).

        Reply
        • 

          144

          ) Jaime
          January 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm

          Thank you for replying Nasim. I purchased the 24-70mm a few days ago and I am very happy with it so far! I must have had a bad sample, but in the end a long zoom is not what I need… however I just read your review on the 85mm 1.4 and now I know what they mean by ‘lens lust’! :)

          Reply
          • 

            146

            ) Nasim Mansurov
            January 6, 2011 at 10:53 am

            Jaime, oh yeah, we also call it “NAS” – Nikon Acquisition Syndrome!

            Reply
      • 

        139

        ) LOU
        January 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm

        They say the difference between an amateur & a professional is the number of photos one takes – I tend to agree. Yes, a 50 is too short for people imho, but fine for “adventures”. Upon further thought, take a look at Nikon’s old 80-200 AF-D 2.8. They’re still available new. I’m not a professional, per se, but I have traveled a lot with cameras & pro-level glass, and I’d have to say weight doe’s matter – it’s just a matter of time. Good luck, Jaime.

        Reply
38. 

    136

    ) Geno EJ Sajko
    January 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Nasim, weight is an issue. Since we will be flying into 3 remote areas with small planes, there is a limit to what I can bring including camera gear. The total is weighed and the allowance small. So 2 camera bodies is out. I got a copy of the 28-300 and will give it a go this week. My 70-200 is VR II. Thanks all for the advice. Either way, whatever the final outcome is, it just isn’t easy!

    Reply
    • 

      138

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      Geno, I see! Well, good luck with your 28-300mm (you will need it)! :)

      Reply
    • 

      143

      ) Doug
      January 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      I understand weight issues for sure, but I would seriously recommend you reconsider the 70-200VR II + TC20E III combo. As much as I love the 28-300VR, I would not rely on it for a serious trip, if for no more reason than pure reliability. It is not a pro lens.

      Safari is all about zoom, and 400mm is just a start. The 28-300VR is not strong at 300mm and the AF is treacherously finicky at 300mm in all but the best light. Your subjects will not be well-lit… If you haven’t done so, take the 28-300VR to a zoo and try to shoot distant subjects in poor lighting. I have (last week), and I have hundreds of blurry panda pictures to prove you won’t be too happy.

      Reply
      • 

        147

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        January 6, 2011 at 10:56 am

        Doug, totally agree with you on 70-200mm VR II + TC20E III (Geno already owns the 70-200mm VR II), but seems like weight is a big issue and he might not be able to take the 70-200mm with him…

        Reply
        • 

          162

          ) Geno EJ Sajko
          January 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm

          I usually take my Oly E3 when traveling for size/weight. I have the 80-200 bad boy thee as well. This would in effect give me 160-400. I also have the 1.4 converter to take me to 560. But I worry about low light and noise with ISO over 400… But it is an option… Comments (since this thread is kind of short and running out of steam??).

          Reply
39. 

    142

    ) Doug
    January 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    It definitely comes down to shooting styles. On DX, I used to rely on the 17-55/2.8 quite heavily and I tolerated the weight even when traveling. However, I found over time that I really gravitate only to the long end or the very wide, so it ended up that I was relying on the 70-300VR for 90+% of the time and 9% Sigma 10-20 (DX) or 17-35 (FX), subsequently replaced by a 14mm prime. The last 1% is 50/1.8, with which I openly admit to having a dysfunctional relationship since I just don’t like the “normal” perspective. So even though I have pro lenses, I have never bothered buying the 24-70/2.8 because I don’t do event shooting. If I did event shooting, I’d get the 24-70 in a heartbeat, don’t get me wrong. It is essential for that.

    For travel, my second 28-300VR + 14mm make me very happy, although sometimes I miss the ability to utilize bokeh and narrow DoF. I’ve been seriously considering getting an 85/1.4, but the lack of VR and lack of sharpness for other than close-distance portraiture make me very reluctant to spend that much money. Also, even for portraiture, it’s just not enough better than the 70-200VR II to justify (since I don’t do enough portraiture). Perhaps I should get one of those Korean 85/1.4 knockoffs instead…

    Do I regret over-relying on the 28-300VR? Yeah, quite often. I get very irritated when I miss a really good potential shot because of AF unresponsiveness or when the image turns out sub-critically sharp (mostly the latter). On the other hand, there are tons of images that I would never get with all pro or prime lenses because they wouldn’t be along or would take too long to mount. It’s all about tradeoffs.

    Reply
    • 

      148

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 6, 2011 at 11:01 am

      Doug, great points there, thank you for your feedback and opinion!

      As far as the 85mm f/1.4G vs 70-200mm VR II, it is a tough call (again, speed and bokeh vs versatility). I own both and I would say I like the 85mm images better (especially bokeh), although I love being able to zoom in/out with my 70-200mm… When I shoot together with Lola, she uses the 85mm and I use the 70-200mm, because the latter is much heavier and bulkier to use. You lose one thing and gain another :)

      Reply
      • 

        149

        ) Doug
        January 6, 2011 at 11:17 am

        I do lust after the 85 bokeh for portraits, and if I did events to justify it, I’d have it for sure. If only it were just a teeny bit more flexible (higher magnification, sharper for landscape, VR for street and low-light, …). As is, it is a dream lens for a narrow set of applications. I suppose that VR is probably not at all critical for portraiture since subject motion dominates anyway, but I’d love to have it at 85 for night-time street shooting, which is more my style. I guess lugging the 70-200VR will have to suffice, but aside from weight, it is just way too conspicuous.

        The 70-300VR is actually surprisingly good for night-time shooting, but the 28-300VR is pretty bad because of flare (unavoidable for a superzoom) and poor low-light AF.

        Reply
40. 

    150

    ) Don
    January 6, 2011 at 11:50 am

    WOW. This is one serious thread. My only question that maybe has or has not been overlooked is: “what word comes to mind when people see the specs: 28-300 mm f3.5-56 zoom”? The first word that comes to mind is: compromise. The lens is automatically a compromise. It is not designed to compete against “pro glass” in performance characteristics. Is is meant to save weight while providing a decent level of performance. This back and forth is over the top now in my opinion. I have the lens. I use it often. I also have a 14-24 f2.8, as well as the n32 70-200 f2.8 so lens and what they cost is not an issue for me. I bought the lens so that I do not have to carry a bag of lenses around. I make my money advising on telecommunications and security issues, not photography so my shots are for my pleasure. While I can appreciate Nasim’s review of the lens I also respect his bias, he clearly states that he also was not a fan of the 18-200mm either, so to expect a truly unbiased review is not fair to Nasim as he states his view up front. My decision to buy the lens was not based on his review but some of the photos he took with it as well as some of the photos I took with it. Bottom line for me is, if you like the lens, then buy it, use it, enjoy it. I would not get too hung up on what people say here, even what I write.

    Reply
    • 

      151

      ) LOU
      January 6, 2011 at 12:19 pm

      Bravo, Don. I will add that the raison d’être of the 28-300 “compromise” is that the masses were/are fans of the 18-200, and voted with their wallets; Nikon responded with the 28-300 for the FX market. The latest “compromise” appears to be an improved iteration of the 18-200 on most fronts. It’s offered basically an advanced “kit” lens, but even many pros are adopting said “compromise” for the unrivaled convenience the new lens offers.

      I’m confident that 99% of the posters here would be quite happy with a competent sample of the 28-300 – if they could get past the premise that they’re “compromising”. For certain, faster lenses can handle extreme obstacles better, just as low-noise FX can – it’s why I use both at times. But when the situation is not “compromised” by using a slower, “compromise” all-in-one, then why bother with anything else?

      Reply
      • 

        152

        ) Don
        January 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm

        Hi Lou,

        Your posts have been a pleasure to read. To the point, not far out in the weeds, and spot on. I find that there is simply much to do about nothing. Get a good copy of the lens and go shot. Yes, it is that simple. Unless you are putting food on the table from your photos, life is simply to short to really whine and moan about something so basic. While I can respect all of the comments in this thread, reading it is now like work. No joy here anymore. Maybe it’s just me. I did have a good day though.. :)

        Reply
        • 

          153

          ) LOU
          January 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm

          Thank you. Experience is a great teacher.

          Reply
          • 

            154

            ) Don
            January 6, 2011 at 12:52 pm

            Ain’t that the truth. Next time you are across the water in Finland drop a line here and I will buy you a beer. :)

            Reply
            • 

              155

              ) LOU
              January 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm

              OMG! Now those are words worth reading! Thank you. You never know. ;-)
            • 

              160

              ) Nasim Mansurov
              January 6, 2011 at 2:13 pm

              And if you guys happen to be in Colorado, coffee is on me (I don’t drink) :)))
        • 

          161

          ) Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm

          I agree! We worry about gear way too much! I’d better go out and shoot :)

          Reply
      • 

        157

        ) Nasim Mansurov
        January 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm

        LOU, absolutely! That’s why I said in my review that if you like the 18-200mm lens, you will definitely like the 28-300mm. As Don pointed out, I am biased when it comes to 18-200mm, because I’m a pixel-peeping sinner :D Plus, the lens just does not fit my shooting style…

        There is no bad Nikon lens. Every lens is created for a purpose and it seems like the 28-300mm is working out for many Nikon shooters, which is good to know :)

        Reply
    • 

      156

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      January 6, 2011 at 1:33 pm

      Don, you are spot on with everything you have said, thank you! Compromise is a very good word for this lens and I should have surely used it in my review as the header :)

      Happy New Year to you and your family!

      Reply
41. 

    166

    ) Harry Reid
    January 10, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Greetings Lou,
    Many thanks for your, albeit belated, reply! Thanks for your advice. For now, I’ve decided to buy the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 as a “street” lens and not the 28-300. My Sigma 150-500 will continue to shoot the “long stuff”,.it does a damn good job in good light and I’m pleased with the results it produces. Regarding buying a 28-300, I live in rural Ireland and the difficulty that that presents is that I cannot simply “drop in” to a large photographic shop, pick up a lens, try it out, and return it if not satisfied. So therefore I need to be definite in my choice, hence the decision to run with the 70-200 vr 2, for now at least.
    Again, thanks for your advice. I must also pay tributes to Nasim and everyone else who took the time to add various comments on this particular forum. For me, it helped greatly in making decisions! For those that have purchased the Nikkor 28-300, I hope you got a good copy and wish you every success. (Maybe I’ll look at this lens in the future!!)
    Thanks again Lou,.Go Well in 2011.
    Harry Reid,.with the “L” in the middle!!

    Reply
    • 

      167

      ) LOU
      January 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      Well wish I could say that I lived in rural Ireland!

      I love my 70-200 indoors, for sports, and for shorter periods, but it’s attention-getting & a load to carry around at 1500+ grams vs. the 28-300 at 800 grams. I think Nasim mentioned the older 80-200 2.8 (1300 grams) as a top alternative, too. I agree, though it hasn’t VR. Lenstip.com provides excellent quantitative reviews, including all three lenses mentioned, with just enough subjective input to make it all interesting & thought provoking. Good luck, Harry.

      Reply
42. 

    168

    ) Harry Reid
    January 10, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Thanks again Lou. Re weight: try lugging the Sigma 150-500, attached to a D700, around for a day’s outing via ferry and shank’s mare to and on the Saltee Islands off the S/E coast for a full day…ouch! Not to mention a backpack! Great stuff. And “No” I don’t think you want to be in Ireland with our economy at present. Nevertheless,.dream on!
    Harry R.

    Reply
43. 

    169

    ) UA
    January 31, 2011 at 5:44 am

    Great review but it has a weird flaw: it says that lens is not very sharp. However, the sample pictures do not really need more sharpness :D. They are great! Obviously this is due to the smaller aperture used in the photographs than in the tests. For example, the rusty dock? on the picture with small boat. You could easily crop the dock as a separate picture, and it would still have plenty of sharpness to look great photo! There are actually plenty of great pictures taken with this lens all over the internet.

    A good photographer will be able to take fantastic shots with this lens over and over again. The performance problem really shows only on special occasions, e.g. very low light.

    If you are an experienced photographer, you will know when your lens will not perform enough well. You can then swap the primer or the 24-70mm 2.8 (I would go for the primer though, since there is no point to carry overlapping zoom ranges) on your camera. But alas, when you are photographing an event and something spectacular happens for a second or two far away and you have your 24-70mm on your camera.. you will miss it. Or you have your 70-200mm on and something interesting happens few feet away.. you will miss it. So the super sharp primers and sharp 24-70mm/70-200mm have also a performance issue(!), which will have even worse result that occasionally experienced unsharp images: you won’t have a good photo at all!

    At the end, it all depends what you are photographing. In a studio you will not need this lens or if you prefer landscapes or birds. But if you are a “weekend event photographer”, these super zooms are your best friends, especially if you do not have multiple camera bodies or do not prefer carrying a lot of equipment. Two D700 with 24-70 and 70-200 and you are carrying something like 6-8 pounds around your neck. Also, this is a great lens to take with you on a vacation etc. And no, I do not own it :).

    Reply
    • 

      171

      ) LOU
      February 8, 2011 at 9:47 pm

      Great points. Well said. The voice of experience. Couldn’t agree more. I do own it, and it is plenty serviceable. Yes, it performs best at F:8, but it works very well between F:4.5-F:11, and that is well enough for most general applications.

      To a degree, a lens/body worth are about technical specifications and optical results. To a [larger] degree, they are about intended application & [subjective] value to the end user. Stellar test results don’t mean squat if you don’t use the gear.

      My enduring advice: Buy it, try it; don’t like it, return/sell it.

      Reply
44. 

    170

    ) Chris Wood
    February 7, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Hi Nasim,

    Great review, thanks! My question is this: For roughly the same money as the 28-300, which two lenses would you recommend to do a better job? The Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 are out of my budget. What about Sigma or Tamron?

    -Chris

    Reply
    • 

      174

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      February 18, 2011 at 3:11 pm

      Chris, what about the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0? I don’t use Sigma/Tamron lenses, so I cannot really comment on their performance.

      Reply
      • 

        181

        ) amar
        March 25, 2011 at 7:08 pm

        thanks a lot for such a wonderful unbiased information…
        I want to know precisely whether in terms of quality , 28-300 would be better than my kit lemse (18-105) on D90 for the same zoom range. Like photograph taken at 70 mm by 28-300 is better than the the photograph taken at 70 mm by kit lense 18-105 ?

        - amar

        Reply
        • 

          182

          ) Doug
          March 26, 2011 at 9:49 am

          That’s an interesting question. Stopped down, I doubt you’ll be able to see any difference in terms of resolution or subjective quality (that’s true for most lenses). Personally, I find the subjective quality of the 28-300VR (bokeh, etc.) to be quite acceptable. The big difference is in the handling and practical considerations. The 28-300VR is much larger and heavier, and it is a true AF-S lens with manual focus instant override. The dials feel better, and for my needs, the 77mm filter size is a HUGE advantage. Only you can decide whether the size/weight is a plus or minus. For me on an FX body, it is a big win. I’ve tried the 28-300VR on a D5000, and it doesn’t feel as good, so I recommend you try it.

          In my view, the biggest differences are:

          - 28-300mm range on DX just isn’t a good match. On FX, it is a whole different story. I personally think you’d most likely find the 18-200VR II to be more flexible.

          + Having VR will be a HUGE benefit vs. the 18-105. But, again, the 18-200VR II would carry this advantage.

          Unless you plan to move to FX, I don’t think I would recommend the 28-300VR. The crop sensors of DX are much more demanding of resolution, and there are clear resolution sacrifices that need to be made to build a 28-300VR range. From a practical point of view, 300mm is just too long to hand-hold on DX, even with VR, most of the time. Even on a good tripod, these long wiggle lenses vibrate a lot when cantilevered out without a tripod collar. And, of course, the 28mm widest angle means that you will absolutely need to carry a wider angle lens along nearly all the time and change lenses, in which case, what is the point of a super-zoom??

          Of course, these are just my opinions.

          Doug

          Reply
45. 

    172

    ) Rob G.
    February 15, 2011 at 11:36 am

    THIS is why I got rid of the Nikon 28-300…I wasn’t happy AT ALL with its performance so I traded it in and got the newer 18-200 VR II….I use the D300 and D7000 and wasn’t happy with how this lens performed on both cameras…

    Reply
    • 

      173

      ) Don
      February 15, 2011 at 11:58 am

      Wow. The thread lives on. Well, Rob G., why bother with the 28-300mm in the first place as it is an FX lens? Your best bet was getting the 18-200mm from the start. As many here have detailed, some copies of the 28-300mm did not perform as they should while others (including me) had great luck with them. I am happy with my copy.

      Reply
46. 

    175

    ) Jerome
    February 28, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Nasim – many thanks for this site with a wealth of information.
    I just got a D7000 (upgrading from a D40x), so you can box me into the “happy hobbyist” category. I am very grateful of your review on the 28-300mm, as well as everybody who posted. I just got mine, and I am happy with the principle of it (range covered vs. weight/bulkiness) yet want to gage the sharpness of the image produced. What is an easy set of test to perform to find out if I have a “good” 28-300 or one that I should send back? Thanks in advance for your advice or anybody on the thread’s recommendations & ideas.

    Reply
    • 

      177

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      March 3, 2011 at 6:50 pm

      Jerome, if you are happy with the images it takes, why worry about its sharpness? If you still really want to test its sharpness, just print out a test chart (google for “test chart”), hang it on your wall, then focus and take a picture in good light and then analyze the image at 100%. Use Live View for focusing and make sure that you take plenty of pictures while refocusing. But I personally would not recommend doing this, since you do not know what to look for…

      Reply
47. 

    176

    ) Eugene Stevens
    March 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    I truely agree with the compromise statement and I think it has its place. My cousins came over from France for my son’s wedding and I used the 28-300 for our trip to Annapolis and two days later I used my 2.8 lenses for the wedding. It is nice to have options.

    Reply
48. 

    178

    ) Angie
    March 13, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    I’m thinking of buying Nikon D7000 body with len 28-300 ED VR f 3.5-5.6
    I would like to get your advice as being an amateur..

    Reply
    • 

      179

      ) Don
      March 14, 2011 at 2:32 am

      Hi Angie,

      This is a great place for info regarding the 28-300mm lens. If you have time you might want to read though some or all of the responses. I love my lens and have had no problems.

      Cheers,

      Don

      Reply
      • 

        180

        ) Angie
        March 14, 2011 at 6:56 am

        Hi Don,

        Thank you for your comment. I did read this blog and it is very informative.
        So delighted to find your web:):)

        Reply
49. 

    183

    ) Don
    March 26, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Doug you hit a home run. Best answer of the year. My daughter just got into photography and I gave her my 28-300mm that I just purchased because I bought the “big 3″ lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm all f2.8). For her little D3100 camera the lens is a classic mis-match but as she is new to photography she can play around and use the lens for her online camera course. If she decides that this is something she wants to pursue, I will get her a D3S or at least a D700 so she can take advantage of the full-frame advantage. I would whole heartedly recommend the 18-200mm over the 28-300mm for DX cameras everyday.

    Reply
50. 

    184

    ) Richard from UK
    April 1, 2011 at 6:23 am

    This is a question about “noise”, no not image noise, lens noise. I have the 28-300 and must admit as a travel lens it’s terrific. I also have 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and realise its shortcomings agaist those. However, I received my lens 4 weeks ago and the first thing I noticed different to all my other lenses (VR or otherwise) was a noise like a “sizzle” when focusing. This applies whether VR is on or off or whether fitted to either my D700 ot D7000. I phoned Nikon UK tech. department and they assured me this is a normal “quirk” of this particular lens. Does anyone think they are spinning a line and that it may be faulty? Your opiion will be valued. Thank you.

    Reply
    • 

      185

      ) Doug
      April 1, 2011 at 9:04 am

      I would say this is not characteristic of the lens and you should have it looked at. It is not particularly noiser than other AF-S lenses.

      Reply
      • 

        186

        ) Richard from UK
        April 1, 2011 at 11:38 am

        Doug.

        Thanks for that. I have e-mailed Nikon UK and they have suggested I return it for checking. I will update when all is sorted.

        Reply
      • 

        187

        ) Richard from UK
        April 8, 2011 at 6:55 am

        Doug.

        Nikon UK were swift and I received the lens back today. It still “sizzles”, but they are saying “no fault found” so I must assume it’s a “new” but “normal” sound. At least if there are any warranty arguements I’ve got proof from Nikon.

        Richard

        Reply
        • 

          188

          ) Doug
          April 8, 2011 at 7:37 am

          At least the potential issue is on the record. If it becomes more serious in the future, you shouldn’t have any problem getting it repaired under warranty even if the warranty has expired. I hope the noise isn’t too bothersome, even if it is disturbing.

          Doug

          Reply
          • 

            189

            ) Don
            April 8, 2011 at 7:49 am

            Just for fun, I tested mine on my D3S and my daughters D3100. There is a tiny bit of noise but I know that it the VR doing it’s thing. I have a Sigma 120-400mm that makes a similar noise as well. I think as long as the lens is performing (image quality wise) as expected there is nothing wrong. Just my two cents.

            Reply
            • 

              190

              ) Richard from UK
              April 8, 2011 at 8:05 am

              Thanks Don.

              I also took it to a main Nikon retailer and they listened and said, “nope, that’s not right”, unfortunately they didn’t have one in stock so we couldn’t compare. I have 7 Nikon lenses and know the VR and AF noises, but this really is a strange noise superimposed on top of VR and NF noises. I can hear it, but if someone is 3 ft away they can’t. Perhaps I’ve developed super human hearing :-)

              Cheers again.

              Richard
            • 

              191

              ) Richard from UK
              April 11, 2011 at 2:23 am

              I didn’t give up on “the noise” and think I may have an idea of what it could be.

              Imagine a piezoelectric ignition on a gas cooker or hand held electronic gas ignition device, that’s the noise. It would make sense as the SWM motor is a piezoelectric device (which I didn’t know). The human audible tone range varies and as this SWM is Low Frequency (about 100 hz) it may be possible that some can hear it, others cannot. The human range is typically considered to be between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz so 100 Hz is extremely low so should be heard by most people as it’s the higher frequencies that become inaudible with age.

              Piezoelectric sound is the most similar I hear on my 28-300 and I guess some lenses and only some people may be sensitive to it. I knew I recognised the noise, but as we have an electric only cooker I had not immediately remembered the sound.
            • 

              192

              ) Doug
              April 11, 2011 at 4:42 am

              Richard: That’s exactly what the noise is, and unfortunately, it doesn’t bode well. The AF-S motors often fail when they start making such sounds. In fact, the 17-35 is extremely prone to this problem, and I have a copy that makes the sound (started making the noise soon after I got it new). I need to get around to sending it in to Nikon before the warranty expires, especially since I don’t use it much.

              It’s too bad that Nikon didn’t recognize the noise and fix/replace the focus motor when you sent it in. There may not be much you can do other than wait for it to fail completely and endure the noise along with all the dogs and cats in your vicinity. ;)

              Doug
51. 

    193

    ) Richard from UK
    April 11, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Extremely interesting Doug, thank you.

    I have copied the text for my file so I have some more ammo if it fails.

    Richard

    Reply
52. 

    194

    ) Eugene Stevens
    April 12, 2011 at 11:36 am

    This lens continues to surprise me. My AF-VR-80-400 has failed for the 3rd or 4th time (zoom does work in the telephoto direction now). I use the 80-400 as my soccer, Lax, football, baseball and softball assignments (as long as there is enough light). With the demise of this lens, I put the 28-300 on my last two assignments (baseball/softball and Lax). While I miss the reach of the 80-400 (can not get events occuring on the far sidelines) and it has performed very well. In addition to being lighter than the 80-400, the image quality for high school yearbooks is not lacking. A pleasant shooting poiint is the wide angle capability on the close field shots shots which before, I would be cutting off the student’s legs, I can even get the defender by going to the wider angle capability. In the baseball side line shots, I am able to get both the runner as well as the fielder throwing the the ball. In the three baseball and softball games the past two assignments, I got at least 20 more shots per game that I would have missed with a strictly telephoto lens.

    Reply
    • 

      195

      ) Doug
      April 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

      I agree. This week I had only the 28-300VR on a travel trip, and shot for the first time carefully on tripod. I’m extremely impressed with the detail over a wide range of focal lengths, and I have to retract my earlier statements that my stellar copy (2nd) is not as good at distant subjects. When shot carefully, it is quite sharp:

      230mm, f/16, 2/8/30 second HDR brackets:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5613103070/in/photostream/lightbox/
      28mm, f/11, 1/4/15 second HDR brackets:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5610607467/in/photostream/lightbox/

      100% is available there, and they are sharp even after HDR merging and some processing that even reduces sharpening. Of course, contrast is poor, as is to be expected with this kind of lens, but the RAW files are nicely recoverable with careful treatment.

      Gitzo GT1540T travel CF tripod + Benro J-0 ballhead (the latter is very compact and light, cost me a little over $100 in China, and is HIGHLY recommended for travel!). Even with this awkward lens cantilevered out, using only timer release, I got very sharp long exposures!

      Doug

      Reply
      • 

        197

        ) Richard from UK
        April 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm

        Doug.

        I am pleased that you have had good results. Even more to share pictures of a place I know very well having spent many holidays in Sorrento, Amalfi, Positano and of course Ravello etc.

        Richard

        Reply
    • 

      196

      ) Richard from UK
      April 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm

      Eugene. You can’t give a fairer review than that. Although I have had suspected problems with AF noise, this in no way reflects the quality of the lens images. I would say however, for 250- 300mm work, I still think the 70-300mm VR a better lens overall. To expect everything one may want from such a wide range focal length would be a big ask. I love the 28-300mm lens as it gives me flexibility on a single lens.

      Reply
      • 

        201

        ) Eugene Stevens
        April 14, 2011 at 6:52 am

        I just went back to my images shot with this lens and to my surprise, other than my sports photography, most of my images are shot on the wide angle side of this lens. I did select images to show the quality of the images at the various focal length. I did not see any issues at any focal length. At my http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Travel/Germany part of my site, image 7533 is at 300 mm, 7660 at 85 mm, 7452 at 62 mm and 7459 at 42 mm. At http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Family (Annapolis) image 4509 is 28 mm and 4515 is 210 mm. In the Test Shot folder under the root directory, several images are at the 300 mm setting ( 7121 and 7147 (2 images 2nd using enlargement of arch from 1st photo). I do not regret my three week working European trip (not photography related) taking just the 14-14 2.8 and this lens (I only used my 50 and 85 1.4 lenses for a couple of shots and I should have left them home.)

        Reply
    • 

      198

      ) Don
      April 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm

      Hi Doug.

      Let me start by saying that your shots are nothing short of breathtaking. It seems as though you put a bit of your soul into each shot. I really felt the composition and atmosphere that you were trying to communicate. Incredible. As I am somewhat new to the game, I initially bought the 28-300 right after I bought my D3S. Of course I then bought the trinity: 14-24mm, f2.8, 24-70mm, f2.8, and 70-200mm, f2.8. I find that I am in love with my 24-70, and 28-300 for most of my shooting. I am heading to Italy for a few days and will most likely take the trinity, but the simplicity and quality of the 28-300mm is telling me to travel light, drink Bellini’s and enjoy my time. :) Doug, were all of your shots done with only the 28-300mm of were you using something else as well. If you don’t mind, can you explain your HD settings a bit more? Trying to get a feel for things. If shooting was as easy as playing the cello I would be set. Again, great shots….

      Reply
      • 

        199

        ) Doug
        April 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm

        Thank you for your kind words, Don. The four images from Sorrento are all done with the 28-300VR. My usual travel kit is a Sigma 14mm f/3.5 rectilinear + 28-300VR. I expected to use the 14mm, but it was too wide for the viewing distances here, and I haven’t gotten time to do close-in street shooting with it yet. On flickr, I try hard to add tags with the camera and lens, so you can tell. Flickr also lets you see EXIF information, which is usually preserved in my workflow. As far as, HDR, I don’t follow any specific method. If I think there is going to be any possibility of getting an interesting image, I almost always bracket exposures. What is typically sufficient in post is two images about 2-4 stops apart. Unfortunately, the bracketing settings on the D700 don’t allow this, so the closest approximation is 5-way bracket {-2, -1, 0, +1, +2}, which is overkill, but easy. Then I will merge 2, 3, or 4 (usually) depending on what looks best. Note that I often do multiple HDR merges optimized for different parts of the image and blend those together, especially for trouble areas of the image. For the Sorrento tele images, the whole scene is almost within the DR of a single exposure, but I picked up noiseless shadow detail, etc., from other exposures. These days, for post, I use CS5 and a number of Nik tools (Color Efex Pro, Silver Efex Pro, sometimes Sharpener Pro) on most images with a lot of masking. I also am open to substantial editorial changes in order to produce what looks best artistically to my eye, although there were barely any edits in the Sorrento images. That doesn’t mean that I don’t greatly respect those who must do almost no editorial changes, e.g., nature photographers for publication. It’s just not my goal.

        By the way, after accompanying many young string players and raising two cellist daughters who attended conservatory, but don’t make a living with it, I certainly have a lot more respect for even the most modestly talented string players. There is definitely a lot of common brain wiring between photography and music, and it is remarkable how many top professional photographers are actually failed musicians who fell short in the talent and/or hard-work departments. :) I am merely an engineer who falls short on any artistic endeavor and chose the easy route.

        Doug

        Reply
        • 

          200

          ) Don
          April 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm

          Hey Doug,

          You are fast becoming my hero. I love the part about the failed musician to photographer comparison. You are spot on. I was forced as a child to play the flute. I still have nightmares. :) I decided to take up the cello at the age of 48 because I wanted a cool hobby. Many of my friends build things, fix cars, etc… Cello just fit. I had always loved the sound but never go around to playing. So living here in Finland and having friends at Sibelius Academy here in Helsinki, I decided to find some instructors and I was lucky enough to find some incredible performing cellists/students. It has been a blast so far.

          As for the photography hobby, I went a bit backwards. Normally most migrate from the bottom up in terms of equipment. I started with a Nikon D300s, then jumped to a D3S a month later. It’s been fun. I am also fortunate enough to jump on the big three of lenses but now I need to learn to put them all to use. This site has been great and helpful. The advice and commentary from the posters has be very valuable. With that in mind, if you have no objections, I would love to pick your brain from time to time about techniques, tech stuff, etc…

          Cheers,

          Don

          Reply
53. 

    202

    ) Richard from UK
    April 25, 2011 at 5:06 am

    Further to my regarding the “noise” when auto focusing on the 28-300mm. I was not happy with the Nikon response, or rather lack of it, following their investigation into the “piezoelectric” noise. Today, I have received a reply to my letter asking for a definitve answer as to the noise. They say: “the small amount of noise is caused by the SWM and is considered to be the result of normal function”.

    I am really glad I now have evidence that they have agreed there is a noise and that I can keep in case of any warranty arguements.

    Richard

    Reply
54. 

    203

    ) Richard from UK
    April 25, 2011 at 5:07 am

    Further to my posting regarding the “noise” when auto focusing on the 28-300mm. I was not happy with the Nikon response, or rather lack of it, following their investigation into the “piezoelectric” noise. Today, I have received a reply to my letter asking for a definitve answer as to the noise. They say: “the small amount of noise is caused by the SWM and is considered to be the result of normal function”.

    I am really glad I now have evidence that they have agreed there is a noise and that I can keep in case of any warranty arguements.

    Richard

    Reply
    • 

      204

      ) Eugene Stevens
      April 27, 2011 at 7:28 am

      Richard, I took mine into the office today and I tested it in my office and I can not hear any autofocusing noise. I can only hear a very small noise if I put my ear on the lens and focus and I do not hear anything with my eye on the eye piece.

      Reply
      • 

        205

        ) Richard from UK
        April 27, 2011 at 7:48 am

        Thanks Eugene.

        I don’t think it’s right but there’s nothing I can do as Nikon have written saying it’s normal which I know it isn’t. I just hope if and when it fails, in or out of warranty they will repair it. Not impressed with Nikon UK in this instance.

        Reply
55. 

    206

    ) Sunshine
    May 9, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    i’m using D90 and i’m looking for a longer zoom lens.

    Would you please make me a comparative analysis between these 3 lens, the best to suits my camera?

    a) new 18-200 mm
    b) new 28-300 mm
    c) 70-300 mm

    thanks in advance.

    Reply
    • 

      207

      ) kiai pancal
      May 9, 2011 at 7:29 pm

      i have d7k,d700 and d3s and in the beginning i have 3 of those. but then i sold the 70-300mm because i have 70-200 and 80-200mm. i keep 18-200mm for my d7k and d700 with 28-300mm.

      18-200 is good lens for DX, 28-300 is for FX but also good in DX with 1.5 crop factor. from my experiences, IQ of 28-300 more better because use new technology. in my opinion all are best in your d90, but you need to know what is your requirements.

      if you need zoom 18-200mm, DX then this is the lens, but if you need zoom 40-450mm then get 28-300mm also this is your invesment toward FX. but for some prefer 70-300 because it is good for portrait, but weak at 300mm. so if you have cover for portrait and human interest lens such 50mm, 85mm then get 28-300.

      d700, 28-300mm
      http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/5939/resizeofdsc6199c.jpg

      but so far i dont have any problem with 18-200mm with my d7k.
      [IMG]http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9969/resizeofdsc4878.jpg[/IMG]

      so hope you can find your best zoom lens…

      Reply
      • 

        208

        ) Sunshine
        May 9, 2011 at 7:48 pm

        I would like to use the lens especially for sports, horses…
        what do you say would be the suitable mm?

        thanks a lot!

        Reply
        • 

          209

          ) Richard from UK
          May 10, 2011 at 12:22 am

          If I were you and for sports and horses, I would choose the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR rather than the 28-300mm. Having used both it is better suited in my opinion to those subjects.

          Richard

          Reply
      • 

        210

        ) Eugene Stevens
        May 11, 2011 at 5:48 am

        I normally use the 80-400 VR for my sports field work (while there is sufficient light). On my Fuji S5 (DX) that gives me an effective 600mm and I can get shots on the far side of the football/soccer field. My 80-400 VR initially was dropped (.5 foot) on to the track and was very stiff after that. It failed and is now in for its third trip to Nikon for zoom failure (I mentioned the history because I am not sure whether two subsequent repairs after my initial mess up is reflecting on the lens or not). I did not purchase the 28-300 for sports; however, with my main field lens in the shop I have been very pleased with my copy of the 28-300. On your DX sensor, the 450 effective range may be enough for your shooting style. I used it on my FX D700 and as I stated earlier, I am able to get some nice close action shots that I would not have gotten with the 80-400. When I get the 80-400 back from Nikon, I most likely will still use that for equestrian shots and football; however, the 28-300 may stay in place for soccer and LAX. If you are still uncertain regarding the optimal lens for your purposes may I suggest that you rent or borrow the lenses to determine which one you prefer for your situation. In my case the 28-300 has become my primary family lens instead of my 28-70 2.8. My mother’s day photos were all shot with that lens using appetures from 28-250. I did not use it for my last wedding (stayed with my 2.8s); however, I find myself going to the 28-300 much more frequently than I ever imagined I would (even for my freelance sports jobs since the 3rd failure of my 80-400).

        Reply
        • 

          211

          ) Eugene Stevens
          May 11, 2011 at 5:49 am

          I forgot to include the url if you want to see the quality of the mother’s day photos http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Family/Mothers-Day-2011/16971057_XrRtqk#1283604235_dtDZThS

          Reply
56. 

    212

    ) Ash
    May 11, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Thank you for the nice reviews and discussions about the 28-300
    I have a D90 and 18-200 VR II that I got last year. The 28-300 was released later. After my trip to Kenya, I found that I could have taken a longer zoom lens. My dilemma is whether to replace my 18-200 with the new 28-300 or just get the 70-300mm. I also have a 50mm f/1.8D.
    I am just a casual photographer and take family pics including my daughter’s dance stage programs, and nature and wild life pictures.

    Reply
57. 

    213

    ) Eugene Stevens
    May 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    I went back through this thread and I came back with the impression that this was not a low light lens. It may not appropriate for low light available light, however, with flash, it performed very well. I never liked these all-n-one type of lens; however, I find myself using it more an more. This latest use was for two high school proms this weekend. One issue I have had with proms is the low light making focusing difficult and how to make “X” rated images acceptable for high school yearbooks. Prior to use of this lens, I used my 80-200 2.8 to get shoulder and head images of dancers and my 28-70 2.8 for group of student shots which necessitated going back to the bag or using a second body. With this lens, I was able to shoot the dancing headshot and go quickly to the other group shot (250 mm to 30 mm many times). I was also using my Metz (I think 58 AF2) (replaced my speedlight 900) for the first time. This combination was rather good. The IR focusing (I did not have enough light to manually focus) with this combination (Metz and this lens) worked more than 90% of the time (15 out of focus for more than 500 shots). I am still being surprised by the number of uses I have found for this lens.

    Reply
    • 

      214

      ) Ashok Kumar
      May 16, 2011 at 8:22 am

      Thanks for the info.
      Iam not a professional photographer, but for convenience the 28-300 may be better, if I can get rid of the 18-200.

      Reply
    • 

      215

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      May 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      Eugene, I guess it all depends on your shooting style and how/what you are shooting. At f/8, your 28-300mm might be similar to the 80-200mm at certain camera to subject distances, but then the 28-300mm would never render the same quality bokeh as the 80-200mm for headshots wide open. So we are not talking about an apples to apples comparison here :)

      Reply
      • 

        216

        ) Eugene Stevens
        May 17, 2011 at 5:30 am

        No disagreement there but the assignment was for a High School prom. I would not use this lens at a wedding; however, I needed to shoot at 7.1 because the schools do not want portraits and are more interested in shots with multiple students, depth of field needed to be maximized, a flash was required because of the lack of light that even precluded manual focus on many shots. The lens has its limitations but I am surprised about how many times I pull it out of my bag instead my my 2.8s.

        Reply
        • 

          217

          ) Don
          May 17, 2011 at 5:44 am

          Hi Eugene,

          I agree with you. I am constantly surprised at the performance of the lens. I decided to use mine on a super bright sunny day in Helsinki to shoot my daughters football game. I shot on shutter priority and the lens was fast and accurate. Maybe I have a golden lens. I left my 70-200mm, f2.8 at home. While not necessarily my first choice for sports, the 28-300mm did not let me down.

          Reply
58. 

    218

    ) SVRK
    May 19, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    Hi Nasim,

    I am a photography enthusiast but would love to get good quality pictures, I already have 24-70G 2.8 lens on D700 and looking for a lens with more reach for shooting birds while also be able to use for general purpose lens on travel. When I red your review, I got the impression/feeling that you were giving negative verdict on this lens though you never wrote words like ‘bad’ ‘not good’ etc.

    After all this back and forth and spending considerable time in this thread, what is your final take on this lens?

    “Buy this lens as an all rounder, don’t expect pro quality results” or “there are better lenses in the same or extended zoom range for the same price range (like Sigma 50(or 150)-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM etc?)”. I think you would say the first, is’nt it?

    Thanks in advance, Prabhakar

    Reply
    • 

      219

      ) Doug
      May 19, 2011 at 9:39 pm

      I have a great deal of experience with the 28-300VR, which I have shared previously on this thread. Once you get past sample variation (my first copy was quite poor, but my second copy is extremely good), there are some limitations. It is a fantastic, flexible travel lens, and I’ve been quite surprised at how good the results can be when used carefully (I’ve been shooting on tripod and carefully more with this lens recently). Knowing the limitations of a 10x superzoom, I can recommend it whole-heartedly. You can see many samples on my flickr site.

      But when you ask about shooting birds, that is a whole different league. To get the kind of results that I personally would expect with birds, there is no substitute for long pro f/2.8 lenses, and I don’t choose to pursue those subjects because the gear is expensive and awkward to lug around. First of all, 300mm, even if it were f/2.8 and perfect optically, is barely a starting point for bird shots. That said, here is a bird picture from yesterday, which I think is representative of about the best you can get from a lens like this with careful processing (about 25% cropped from about 10′ away; 300mm, f/5.6, moderately low light):

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5737787643/in/photostream/lightbox/

      Is it good? Well, no — for me, it is not good enough, but it is a usable snapshot.

      The second warning that I would give is that the 28-300VR is adequate when used carefully on a 12 MPixel FX D700. I seriously doubt and don’t expect this lens to be acceptable (for me) on the next generation of FX bodies with 20+ Mpixels, nor would I expect this lens to be all that great on a higher Mpixel DX body (e.g., D7000).

      Finally, as a superzoom, realize there are compromises such as AF performance, tendency to flare because the lens hood can only cover for 28mm, and what I would just generally call “nighttime” handling (including poor AF in low light). In my experience, the 70-300VR is much better for nighttime street shooting, but not much better for anything else that I do.

      But make no mistake — I recommend this lens with few reservations as a flexible travel lens, and I get shots that I would otherwise miss because I carry it all the time that way. I accept the limitations and use it all the time. At f/11-13 on tripod with careful post-processing, I get results that are close enough to my 70-200VR f/2.8 II to not make it worth lugging the latter lens in many situations.

      Good luck. From what you say, I think the lens is probably a good match for you.

      Doug

      Reply
      • 

        220

        ) SVRK
        May 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm

        Thanks a lot Doug for that elaborate on s8-300, I did red all your earlier posts and I thought there would be a very narrow band of ‘space’ within which I can use this lens after I consider all your list of exceptions/limitations (take out the night use, take out the moving objects, take out the close zooming)….especially for a 1000 usd lens!

        But the bird photograph you shot is far beyond my expectations and made me thought it doesn’t match with what you wrote about its limitations to shoot birds…is it that you got that shot like ‘one in 50 or 100′ and you did lot of cropping (I never liked cropped shots on my D700 even with 24-70G lens so I dont want to go down the cropping route…but certainly cant spend lot of money on pro quality mega zooms (300-400 mm and above range) of Nikon…

        You seem to say that 70-300mm would be better, have you used it as a general purpose lens (i know this question makes little sense since general purpose varies from person to person with their shooting habits/likes/dislikes etc)…nevertheless u can throw ur experience…Thanks, Prabhakar

        Reply
        • 

          221

          ) Doug
          May 19, 2011 at 10:35 pm

          I used the 70-300VR extensively, paired with a 17-35, as a rather bulky travel kit with the D700. Other than low-light flare and AF, the 28-300VR replaces the 70-300VR, and my 2nd 28-300VR is sharper than my 70-300VR. For closeup work, the 28-300VR beats the 70-300VR easily, especially for casual shots at short focus distances. The 70-300VR minimum focus distance is almost 6′, and that can be a big pain. I find that I’m getting very good closeups with my 2nd 28-300VR.

          70-300VR: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=25338714@N00&q=70300vr
          28-300VR: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=25338714%40N00&q=28300VR

          I don’t have much success with nighttime street shooting with the 28-300VR, but it may be from not being in the same good night situations. Hard to say…

          I don’t think you’ll see much benefit of the 70-300VR over the 28-300VR for bird photographs in good light, and in bad light, you’re pretty much screwed with either lens. :) For critical work, I always avoided using my 70-300VR beyond 250mm or so. I actually compared my 28-300VR at ~210mm vs 300mm yesterday to see whether wider with a small crop is better, and it was not. But just know that this type of lens is not pixel-sharp at 300/5.6; it probably resolves to about 2-3 pixels on a D700. If you look at that bird image at 100%, the feather detail is not sharp (and that is very carefully processed). I don’t shoot birds, but I do shoot people in street photography, and I want detail that this kind of lens can’t provide. BUT, without the flexibility, I wouldn’t be ready for “the shot” anyway, so photography is just full of compromises!

          Good luck!

          Doug

          Reply
          • 

            241

            ) SVRK
            May 22, 2011 at 2:34 am

            Dear Duog, I just noticed your reply. Your photography is far beyond what I could achieve with any of the lenses I have so far; my photography technique is still evolving.

            Coming to the point of 28300 vs 70300, I am yet to make up my mind. The closeup advantage with 28300 wasnt really an advantage since I have seen this lens having lot of focus breathing at close range. I will continue shooting both lenses in shops and will decide after I understand them well. This ‘sample variation’ is driving me nuts though.

            Reply
        • 

          222

          ) Richard from UK
          May 20, 2011 at 12:19 am

          Hi Prabhakar.

          Sorry to interupt your conversation with Doug, but maybe I can help. The Nikon 70-300mm VR lens is an excellent lens for bird photography. I have one and I often use it when I want a lighter lens in preference to my 70-200mm + x1.7 TC or my 80-400mm. Even at 300mm it’s pretty sharp although sharpest at a maximum of about 250mm. The 28-300mm is not a match for it in two ways. Firstly it’s slower focusing and secondly you can’t expect a lens of that range to do absolutely everything as well as the 70-300mm.

          I also had the Sigma 150-500mm which was a great, albeit heavy, lens. It’s advantages are 500mm instead of 300mm, but against it is 150mm at the shorter end.

          Also, Doug raises the subject of the Nikon D7000 with the 28-300mm. I use it on both D700 and D7000. I have had some great results with it on the D7000, perhaps not quite as good as with the D700 but wholly acceptable. As Doug says it is a terrific walkabout lens and I like it very much.

          Richard

          Reply
          • 

            223

            ) SVRK
            May 20, 2011 at 12:25 am

            Thanks a lot Richard, you are certainly not intervening, it is an open forum:-)

            So, you suggest to go for 70-300mm, since it is fast in focus and better optical performance at that zoom range compared to 28-300. What is your take on 15-500mm sigma in terms of its optical performance (sharpness and contrast) when compared to 70-300/28-300 at similar zoom range? Is it comparable to nikon quality since I read a lot about how bad these third-party lenses are. Are you satisfied overall with 150-500? I am also considering this sigma one due to its wide zoom range and low cost. Thanks in advance,

            Reply
            • 

              225

              ) Don
              May 20, 2011 at 12:40 am

              Like some here, I too have the 28-300mm zoom and it is not a bad lens. I do not use if for everything but for times when I want to just throw a lens on my D3S and head out the door for a bit of around town shooting. For the serious stuff though, I use the Trinity (14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200. All f2.8.) In terms of IQ, you get what you pay for. If on a budget Nikon lens are going to be extremely pricey, however you can find some decent 3rd party lenses that my fit the bill. At the end of the day, you have to go with what works for you
          • 

            224

            ) SVRK
            May 20, 2011 at 12:27 am

            Can you share a link to photos shot with 28-300, 70-300, and 150-500mm if you dont mind? I understand that you may not have done comparable shots at comparable zoom/iso/f settings.

            Reply
            • 

              229

              ) Richard from UK
              May 20, 2011 at 1:24 am

              I no longer have the Sigma 150-500mm. The early lenses suffered from focus problems, mine was not one of them. I wrongly swopped it for a Nikon 80-400mm. Like Don I have the trinity too, 14-24/24-70/70-200 and they are what one would expect, absolutely fantastic. However, the 70-300mm is I would say in good light conditions 90% of the 70-200 at the same focal distances and 10% better than the 80-400mm which is now an old lens and so slow on Autofocus to almost render it a manual lens only. It also is appauling when mounted on the D7000 and this I think is old technology with new giving problems.

              The advantage of the 70-300mm VRII is it is such fantastic value for money and produces stunning results economically. I absolutely love that lens because of it’s flexibility and ability to switch seamlessly between the D700 and D7000 and then of course do different jobs. At 450mm on a D7000 with great quality images is a bargain in my view.
            • 

              230

              ) SVRK
              May 20, 2011 at 1:27 am

              Thank you Richard, i will go and check 70-300mm with 28-300 under low light and decide accordingly. I may go for 28-300 if it auto focus well under low light conditions.
59. 

    226

    ) SVRK
    May 20, 2011 at 12:50 am

    Thank you Don for the suggestion, 70-200 is something I am not thinking about right now due to its price and may never buy it if i find a suitable x-300 lens. Did you face any low light auto focus problems with 28-300 or this is too a copy related problem, you seem to indicate so in one of your earlier posts (“Maybe I have a golden lens”)?

    Reply
    • 

      227

      ) Don
      May 20, 2011 at 12:59 am

      Hi SVRK,

      Actually I am not sure about the low light performance as I rarely use it at night or in low light situations. The key as someone stated earlier is to remember that the 28-300mm is a compromise lens across it’s entire functionality range. By purchasing this lens you are saying that you are will to live with compromises. In good light and normal conditions I have had no problems with the lens. Like you I am an enthusiast but am slowly moving towards becoming an advanced amateur. I purchase lenses as I become more and more proficient in the craft. Luckily money is not really a concern for my purchases but the ability to use the kit is. I think you might like the lens. It is not bad and I do not regret my purchase at all.

      Reply
      • 

        228

        ) SVRK
        May 20, 2011 at 1:13 am

        Thank you Don, I will go and check this lens under low light conditions this weekend and see how it does. I checked it earlier at Nikon plaza and didn’t find any focusing/sharpness problems under normal conditions (https://picasaweb.google.com/Sivapuram.Prabhakar/Flowers#5608707739266412802; about 5% crop with marginal increase in contrast) in this case showroom lights.

        Reply
60. 

    231

    ) Don
    May 20, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Hi SVRK,

    I have to admit I am a bit confused about your needs. You seem to be looking for the 28-300mm which makes me think that you require the short end down at 28mm as well as the big 300mm zoom. By looking at a 70-300mm zoom, you are completely foregoing the short end. It’s as though you are looking for two lenses rather than an all aounder. Please correct me if I am incorrect.

    Reply
    • 

      232

      ) SVRK
      May 20, 2011 at 1:49 am

      Hi Don, sorry for confusion, I already have 24-70mm G lens with me and I am primarily looking for a tele-end side. However, I dont mind in buying a lens like 28-300 since it can cover my need and I dont need to carry another wide angle one. However, I will buy 28-300 only if it does a good job on tele side (at least same as 70-300 or a bit better since I am paying almost double the price as that of 70-300mm). If 28-300 is poor on tele side (poorer than 70-300) in terms of optical and auto focus performance, then I will either buy 70-300 or look for a third party ones like sigma 50-500/150-500mm. Hope I am clear this time…

      Reply
      • 

        233

        ) Don
        May 20, 2011 at 1:58 am

        Gotcha. Makes sense. As I haven’t use the 70-300mm, I can not say. Others here can probably answer this question for you. I would say though that for all around usage, the 28-300mm is not bad. Make sure you get a good copy though as others have expressed some irregularities.

        Reply
        • 

          234

          ) SVRK
          May 20, 2011 at 2:03 am

          The ‘copy’ thing is also one of the things bothering me since there is no ‘return’ policy in Japan, they will only repair it if found ‘defective’ but will not replace, certainly wont recognize something as
          ‘bad copy’ as a problem, and they will not open the box and check the lens before buying…I had trouble with 24-70mm with rattling sound from inside, they just repaired it instead of replacing…

          Reply
          • 

            235

            ) Richard from UK
            May 20, 2011 at 2:41 am

            Sounds to me that you want the telephoto end of the 28-300 as I suspected. If this is because you want it for wildlife etc. then the lens for you is undoubtably the 70-300mm. This lens was made for the long shooter in mind. The 28-300mm was made with the all rounder in mind and it does its job well, but not as well at the 70-300mm at the long end.

            Reply
            • 

              237

              ) SVRK
              May 21, 2011 at 9:25 am

              Today I checked both 28-300 and 70-300, the difference in auto focus speed is very clear, 70-300 is much faster than 28-300. However, I thought the number of shots of moving people were more with 28-300 than with 70-300mm (surprisingly though) . I also could see the focus breathing problem with 28-300. Sigma 150-500 is out of my list, it is useless even if it comes free, it is heavy, bulky, slow, not sharp.
61. 

    236

    ) SVRK
    May 20, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Thanks a lot Richard, that clarifies my dilemma very much, then I only have 70-300mm or third party lens as options.

    Reply
    • 

      290

      ) RRRoger
      August 14, 2011 at 6:53 am

      Thanks for the review which is obviously on a FX camera.
      I find that I get much better results on my D5100 and D7000
      Yesterday I shot some Turkey Vultures overhead at Pinnacles National Monument, CA
      Scored 10 for 10 and all were sharper than the Hawk example.
      Using single area, single spot the camera locked on in an instant.

      Reply
      • 

        291

        ) RRRoger
        August 14, 2011 at 7:07 am

        PS I’ve owned both versions of the 70-300 and I like the 28-300 much better in the same range.

        I sold the70-300s before selling my D3 bodies, so perhaps I will change my mind about the 28-300 afer I get a higher resolution D800 FX, if they make one.

        Reply
62. 

    238

    ) Don
    May 21, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Moi SVRK (moi = hi in Finnish),

    Was waiting for you to get back with your results. The key to remember here again is that you are purchasing a lens without that little gold ring, i.e. not professional glass. You are paying for a compromise so you have to decide to live with the compromise. It is a hard call. If you already have the lower focus end then opt for the 70-300 and go nuts shooting. Have a blast and enjoy what you do. You can spend too much time here going into the technical and miss the fun of shooting. I have a 28-300mm and like it. I actually enjoy using it because when I mount it to my D3s I already know what I am getting into and don’t look for more than the lens can deliver. Yes the 28-300mm has limitations but you know them, recognize them. Can you live with them is the question that you have to ask yourself.

    Reply
    • 

      239

      ) kiai pancal
      May 21, 2011 at 11:00 am

      terv Don (only 3 month in Finland for system testing.. so trying to say in finnish :-),

      im agree with you… and i can live with 28-300 with d3s ..

      Reply
    • 

      240

      ) SVRK
      May 21, 2011 at 8:02 pm

      Dear Don and all, thanks a lot for your valuable suggestions. I agree with you all that too much pixel peeping is not good and I should reach a conclusion to get to shooting. I have decided to buy 70-300 probably because it is cheap and covers my range well.

      Reply
      • 

        242

        ) Don
        May 22, 2011 at 3:15 am

        Hi SVRK,

        I did a quick (and I mean quick) search of lens breathing. The fact remains, most of the newer and modern zoom lens will breath. Some are better (the more expensive ones) at masking or controlling this than say some of the less expensive models. Unless you are ready to jump for pro glass, you are going to be stuck with the breathing issue. Also, in my opinion, I think that the 28-300mm is a pretty good lens for the money. You will surely get much more use out of it considering the focal range. Like I said, I have one as well as the “lens trinity” and I use my 28-300mm often. I do not regret purchasing it at all.

        Reply
        • 

          243

          ) SVRK
          May 22, 2011 at 3:39 am

          Thank you Don, I think you are right, most modern lenses suffer from this breathing limitation. Even if we remove the close range breathing problem out of equation, 28300 is still behind 70300 at the tele end side in which I am more interested (?), so what specific advantage am I getting by paying 1000 USD…getting an average all round lens…?

          Reply
          • 

            244

            ) Don
            May 22, 2011 at 4:36 am

            Your only advantage would be having a lens spanning 28mm to 300mm, all in one package. I knew this when I went and bought the lens even though I had the other three pro lenses. Sorry my friend but it is what it is. Wish I could be of more help but I can’t. It comes down to six in one hand, half dozen in the other. You are going to make some trade offs no matter where you choose. If money is an issue, maybe you should look at some third party lenses that are closer in the performance of the Nikon, but here too, you are faced with similar compromises. Maybe some of the other guys here can weigh in with more advice.

            Reply
            • 

              245

              ) SVRK
              May 22, 2011 at 5:05 am

              Thanks Don, I will see what other lenses are available before i decide, my experience with third party lenses is no good. I will keep experimenting wit 28300 and 70300 until I start liking one of them….I like this ‘six in one hand, half dozen in the other”…
        • 

          296

          ) Ramos Silverio Ibo
          August 27, 2011 at 5:26 am

          Dear Sir i have a nikon camera and would like to buy 28 – 300 mm zoom. How can i go about it? Please help me. Your reply should be appreciate very much,
          kind regards i am writing from mozambique.
          Ramos Silverio Ibo

          Reply
          • 

            297

            ) Don
            August 27, 2011 at 9:04 am

            You might want to look at Amazon or some other websites or try to order directly from Nikon.

            Reply
63. 

    246

    ) Don
    May 22, 2011 at 5:29 am

    By the way, I have one third party lens. A Sigma 120-400mm, f4.5-5.6. While not quite “professional” it served me well in my trip to Italy, Germany, and a few other places. I purchased it with the compromises in mind. As I hardly ever shoot out at 400mm I could not see the point in spending the money on a lens that I will not use as much as the others. I do have my eye on the 85mm, f1.4, or the 105mm, f2, or the 10.5mm, f2.8 (fisheye). You think you have decisions to make. :) Hell, I might just get them all and be done with it. Play with the third party lenses, but in the end I think you will be happy that you stayed with Nikon. Like I said, I use the Nikons for when it really counts.

    Reply
    • 

      247

      ) SVRK
      May 22, 2011 at 6:30 am

      i agree, there are very few third party lenses that can equal original lenses, my first preference is always Nikon as I am yet to come across a beating 3rd party lens.

      Reply
      • 

        248

        ) Don
        May 22, 2011 at 6:32 am

        You are slowly answering your own questions my friend. :) Get the 28-300mm. It will give basically the same if not slightly better performance at the long end as was mentioned here (I think). You have one lens to take rather than two.

        Reply
        • 

          249

          ) SVRK
          May 22, 2011 at 6:53 am

          :-) That is what these forums are for, isn’t it? I will check 28300 and 70300 lenses few more times before taking a decision. The long-end side performance is not categorical though, it looks like subjective to the ‘copy’ issue which is what holding me back largely, I cant return a lens in Japan stating a ‘poor performance’ or ‘bad copy’…it would then be an endless communication with the manufacture/service centers.

          Reply
          • 

            250

            ) Don
            May 22, 2011 at 6:55 am

            I would get 2 or 3 28-300mm’s and shoot them side by side. Write down the serial number of all the lens so that you can remember which one gave the best performance and then buy that one. Do the same with the 70-300 as well if you like.

            Reply
            • 

              251

              ) SVRK
              May 22, 2011 at 7:04 am

              That is an excellent idea Don, I can do that if the store guy accepts to open boxes of those many lenses, in which case I should be ready to pay more (about 10%) compared to internet prices which should be probably OK since I get a good copy …
            • 

              252

              ) SVRK
              May 22, 2011 at 7:09 am

              Any idea what kind of test setup would be a good one to compare lenses, I put the camera on manual mode, dial in the desired f number and zoom and shoot some static objects and compare? Carry a laptop and see the pictures on big screen and decide. SO much ado about it! I wonder if anyone has gone through such an ordeal…
64. 

    253

    ) Don
    May 22, 2011 at 7:26 am

    No idea what a good test setup would be. It would be nice if Nasim would weigh in and provide a bit of input. However, maybe you can read back a few pages and see what others have used as their tests to determine how to do things. You idea sounds as good as any I can come up with.

    Reply
65. 

    254

    ) Doug
    May 22, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Based on all the interest in comparing the 70-300VR and 28-300VR, I took the opportunity while I was home in Chicago to do a quick retest of both lenses at 300mm f/5.6 (wide open). You can find the two links here (100% links):

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5749466266/sizes/o/in/photostream/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5749465486/sizes/o/in/photostream/

    I’m not sure whether flickr does any munging or sharpening of full-res JPEGs; if you want the RAW files, I can probably make them available, but I don’t think you’ll see any different results.

    [Deleted due to website spam filtering that wouldn't let my links in.]

    Conclusions:

    I’ve previously tested both lenses at other apertures, and stopped down, they are both excellent, rivaling even the 70-200VR II. At 100%+, I have to give a very slight edge to my 28-300VR in the center, perhaps mainly due to a slight contrast advantage. But the 70-300VR seems to be the clear winner at the right and left edges (top and bottom here). That makes for a hard decision given the incredible flexibility of the 28-300VR.

    I will also note that the LiveView contrast AF hunted significantly with the 28-300VR in the moderate light, while the 70-300VR performed like a champ. I maintain my statements that the 28-300VR’s key drawbacks are low-light AF and flair risk (probably due to the limited lenshood that has to cover 28mm). Conversely, it was immediately obvious that the flimsier 70-300VR was MUCH bouncier cantilevered out from the camera body without a tripod collar. So for slower shutter speeds even on tripod, the 28-300VR may have an edge, and on my recent trips, I found the sturdier 28-300VR to perform beautifully on tripod.

    They are very close, but I still can’t justify the 70-300VR as a travel lens over the 28-300VR, and if I were shooting carefully, I would always take my 70-200VR, so I guess my beloved 70-300VR is going to remain neglected.

    Doug

    Reply
    • 

      255

      ) Doug
      May 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm

      Rest of message due to spam filtering restriction on links…

      Test conditions and comments are available on the flickr image pages:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5749466266/in/photostream
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/5749465486/in/photostream/

      Doug

      Reply
66. 

    256

    ) SVRK
    May 22, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Dear Doug, thanks a ton for that excellent comparison setup. I couldn’t ask for more! Under test conditions, which remained fairly same for both lenses, I think there is very little difference between both lenses unless otherwise one blows them to 100% size on the screen. For all practical purposes they stand almost the same, having you compensated for the focus breathing, light exposure etc. This could be a test for the optical performance of both the lenses, taking out other bells an whistles they come with (VR, focusing motors etc). I agree that 28300 is sharper and better contrast at the center while the 70300 was better at Yuan note.

    However, another question is how do they perform under real use conditions. You said that you found it difficult with 28300 to lock auto focus even under test conditions which I think is a bit disturbing for a lens of that cost and especially if one is interested in the tele-end of the lens. I understand that any lens of magnification of 28300 will take time to focus all way from 28mm focal plane to 300mm focal plane. Considering all Nikon lenses are slow in auto focus compared to Canon or others, probably this should be taken as ‘given or best possible auto focus performance’ from Nikon for that zoom range.

    One last question, did you see any difference in focus performance (speed with which they auto focus) if both lenses are focused within a zoom range of 250mm to 300 mm. What I mean is, if you zoom to 250mm and lock the focus on an object X, take a shot, and immediately zoom to 300 mm and lock the focus on object Y which is farther from object X. Probably 70300 should be faster, am I right?

    Given the cost and my interest in the tele-end of the lens, I think that 70-300 is a clear winner and recommendable lens. Let me know if my judgement is correct or not. If correct, I should be going for 70-300.

    I cant really thank you enough for this, I never expected that somebody will do this just for my request (of course useful to all others too).

    Reply
    • 

      257

      ) Doug
      May 23, 2011 at 1:44 am

      I wouldn’t make much of my comments about AF here. I was using LiveView instead of normal AF mode (in order to guarantee that AF accuracy wasn’t an issue). In my experience, the 28-300VR hunts for focus on my D700 a bit more than the 70-300VR, but I am quite used to the way both lenses work and in practice, I don’t miss focus much. Both lenses will focus hunt, especially at the long end.

      I may take the 70-300VR out on the street to see how they compare after using the 28-300VR extensively for a few months.

      I guess one thing is clear — if you take cost into consideration, the 70-300VR is a big winner. But, as I’ve said, for me the 28-300VR is a clear winner as a travel lens overall.

      Doug

      Reply
67. 

    258

    ) SVRK
    May 23, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Thanks a lot Mr Doug, you are right, cost wise 70300 is a big winner.

    I thought auto focus speed at tele end is important for shooting moving objects such as birds. I would greatly appreciate if you could try auto focusing with variable distances and zoom positions and let us know your experience.

    Reply
    • 

      259

      ) Eugene Stevens
      May 24, 2011 at 6:24 am

      I will jump back into this discussion especially after Binging this focus breathing issue as well. As you may know from my eailer posts, I do a lot of high school sports photography (75 5 of my 1.4 million shots since I have gone digital starting with the Fuji S2). That said I use almost every lens in my bag from the 2.8 trinity mentioned above, to the 80-400 VR and the 28-300 that is the subject of this thread. My primes are my 1.4′s as well as a couple of 2.8s and I have used them all. The only lens I have ever had focusing issues associated with it was my sigma 28-70 2.8 (or there abouts). I am sure sigma lenses are a lot better now but my experience with that 3rd party lens and one other steered me to only purchase Nikkor lens. In terms of lens focusing with the Nikon family of lenses I have never experienced an issue whether it is a football game with the 80-400 VR, a LAX with the 28-300, or an under the lights (poor lighting) with the 85 1.4. Focusing in sports from the side line, the 28-300 has not been an issue with my copy. The quality of the image for the type of freelance work I do has not been an issue with any of my lenses. For weddings I will stick mostly to my 2.8s; however, I have gotten very good prom shots with the 28-300 (flash at 250 and F7.1)

      Reply
68. 

    260

    ) SVRK
    May 24, 2011 at 7:09 am

    Thank you Mr Eugene Stevens, I looked through your sports photographs and quite a few of them were shot with Nikon setup. I am used to reading that 80-400 vr is a slow lens and is not good for sports/bird photography, but it looks like it could freeze action in your photos, and comparing to that probably 28300 should do better…

    Reply
69. 

    261

    ) Eugene Stevens
    May 24, 2011 at 10:08 am

    I really like the 80-400 for my sports field photography. I can not post my sports photos from the past three years; however, my http://www.clarityphotos.com site has my sports shots shot prior to my working for my current studio. Almost all the daylight field sports shots as well as my baseball shots were done with the 80-400 VR lens so I have to say that I disagree with Ken Rockwell in his statement that it is not suitable for sports photography. Very few of those shots were done wide open for when I got down to the 5.6 I switched to my 80-200 2.8 lens. All my lenses are Nikon and prior to the D700 I used the Fuji S2,3 and 5 which used Nikon bodies and I think produced better color, noise reduction, and decent high ISO settings than their comparable Nikons of the same period. I used to purchase my camera and lenses via the internet; however, after the S2, I purchased from my local camera shop where I can return my copy if I do not like it performance. That is what I did before my European business trip when I tested the 28-300 in the rain in front of my office (www.clarityphotos.smugmug.com). I thought the photos were acceptable and I left all of my 2.8 lenses (except the 14-24) at home. The Pompei photos were all done with the 28-300 lens and I could not have walked on the irregular streets for 7 hours with any more camera equipment than that lens and my D700. I think what you should do is to rent all three lenses one weekend and see which one you like for the type of photography you do. enjoy.

    Reply
    • 

      263

      ) SVRK
      May 24, 2011 at 8:06 pm

      I was looking at this picture of letters on a wall (http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Test-Shots/Test-Nikkor-28-300-3-56-G-VRII/14398623_mzWxK#1067354409_zxWRz), which looks like a hand held shot at high ISO (1600) at 300 mm and was thinking that this lens is not at all sharp at 300mm end, but then you have another shot (http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Test-Shots/Test-Nikkor-28-300-3-56-G-VRII/14398623_mzWxK#1067354152_YiNsq, shot at same iso and zoom) which is much better than the previous one. The difference in quality is because of the ambient light conditions I guess (?). Nevertheless, I think I am confirmed that 28300 is a general purpose lens and should be treated as such.

      Reply
      • 

        264

        ) Don
        May 24, 2011 at 10:17 pm

        Hi SVRK,

        We have been saying that the 28-300mm is a general purpose lens from the very start. Of course it is as it is not pro glass quality. It seems that you want pro performance for a general purpose price. It’s just not going to happen. I think we all have done everything possible to give a fair review of the lens. Not sure what else anyone here can do to provide further info. You have to either buy it or pass it by.

        Reply
        • 

          265

          ) SVRK
          May 24, 2011 at 10:40 pm

          You are right Don, you all have been saying the same, it is only for me hard to believe a 1000 dollar lens as a general purpose lens and probably there is nothing better tele lens in that price range. It could also be that I was probably expecting too much for that price. I have no doubt you have given a fair review.

          Reply
          • 

            266

            ) Don
            May 25, 2011 at 2:11 am

            Here is maybe an easier solution for you. Don’t buy the 28-300mm. Buy a less expensive 3rd party general purpose lens. As this too is a compromise, you will not be constantly reminded of the price for the Nikon.

            Reply
      • 

        267

        ) Eugene Stevens
        May 25, 2011 at 5:34 am

        All the images in the test shot gallery were hand held while was running in and out of the rain. Those last four shots were through the moving subway window as it was stated in the description. The building museum shots while similar were at different F stops at F300 handheld to let the lens speak for itself on a brick wall. The chinese gate was cropped from one of the adjcent photos showing the cop from a 300 mm image and the level of detail (ISO 400). There is no single best choice. One point regarding lens purchases is that the lens will last far longer than the camera. Two of my 2.8 lenses (28-70 and 80-200) are well over 10 years old and while they do not have VR (a feature I seldom use – on 2 other lenses I have) I shoot at speeds normally faster than 600th and I try to keep my shots at 1000th for sports. Think of lenses as a long term purchase and the camera as short term. The camera’s electronics will be out of date far before your lens’s optics. The D700 is my 4th DSLR since I purchased my first in 2002. I think you are at the point where you need to shoot with the candidate lens and then make your choice.

        Reply
70. 

    262

    ) SVRK
    May 24, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Thank you Mr Eugene Stevens, I browsed through your photos at clarityphotos.com and found that the lens is able to freeze the action reasonably well, you look like have increased the ISO to help freeze the action. nevertheless, the photos posted at smugmug are better (most of them were shot with fujifilm).

    Reply
    • 

      268

      ) Eugene Stevens
      May 25, 2011 at 5:43 am

      Do not forget that the sports photos on the http://www.clarityphotos.com shots are at least 3 years old shot with the Fuji S2/3 and 5. Almost all the current bodies have much higher usefull ISOs and they were all shot as jpgs. I now shoot RAW and make a necessary lighting adjustments in lightroom and export the jpgs for the schools yearbooks. The only shots taken as slow as 1/250th are the flash and the 1.4 lens shots.

      Reply
      • 

        269

        ) SVRK
        May 25, 2011 at 5:51 am

        Thank you, I have noticed that. I was going through your photos again for reading the comments you mentioned.

        Reply
71. 

    270

    ) Angie
    May 28, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Dear Mansurovs,

    Sorry to bother you again.
    I have asked you about D7000 with 28-300 , now I am curious if 18-200 goes with D7000 and much better than with 28-300 ? Understand they are DX & FX. Please give me your recommendation.
    Thank you very much.
    Angie

    Reply
    • 

      272

      ) SVRK
      May 29, 2011 at 4:17 am

      Yesterday I went to camera stores again to test 28-300, 70-300, 300 f4, & 300 f2.8D and I should say I was not impressed.

      28-300 is a general purpose lens and would not give you the results you would expect from a lens of its price, it is pathetically slow in auto focus, and just average in optical performance. 70-300mm vr may give you marginally better pictures and marginally faster than 28-300 but I am not satisfied with both of them. Yesterday I shot with 4 various copies of this lens and none of them could make me purchase. The field of view is so wide for a practical close range photographs, it would certainly make you think why it is labelled 300mm!

      Probably hand held 300 F4 may give you few keepers in good day light. It auto focuses faster than 28300 or 70300 and sharper. Lack of VR would drastically limit the use of this lens, and lack of rear lens element makes it most vulnerable lens to dust in field use (strictly no change of lenses in the field unless you dont care paying for dust removal).

      70-200 mm vrII is optically good lens, fast in auto focus, heavy, pricy, but I thought it cant be a day-long user. Use of TC-14E on this could get you close to 300mm with VR. One can only use this setup on a day with peak photography desire (with D700 and TC the total weight of this setup would be around 3 KG!).

      I also tried 300mm f2.8, they are the best, but they are built like tanks and are specialized lenses for use only with tripod, I would never imagine using this 2.8 class lenses handheld, not for even 30min, and certainly not a day long users.

      Sorry for giving a bad picture, that is what it is right now with Nikon, as I understand. It is time that Nikon release a 300mm f4 vr version and save its market base.

      Reply
      • 

        274

        ) Don
        May 29, 2011 at 5:05 am

        SVRK,

        We are back again with the same old yin and yang of the 28-300mm. As we have discussed time and time again the lens is a compromise. Rehashing the pricing is not going to change it. If you think that the lens is over-priced verses performance, by all means protest with your wallet and not buy it. For me, the price verses performance is quite okay. I already have the “lens trinity” so the 28-300mm gives me the freedom to travel light when I want to. Do I use the 28-300mm for serious biz? Not remotely, however when I want to travel and not take a camera bag full of lenses, the 28-300mm fits the bill. So as you can see, price is relative. I feel, based on your posts, that you want pro performance from a non-pro lens at non-pro prices. It is not going to happen in this life-time and on this planet. Nokia is selling as many 28-300mm lenses as they can produce. I am also sure that any performance issues they have had were addressed in the later generation of lenses produced. My camera shop is usually one or two weeks out of stock so again people are seeing a reasonable price verses performance ratio. Your mentioning of the 70-200mm is not relevant, in my opinion, because you are comparing apples and oranges. I really have no more ideas how to advise you. What you seem to desire simply does not exist. As for Nikon having a bad picture, this too is relevant to the viewer. For me, Nikon produces the devices that I desire regardless of price so I am quite happy with them.

        Reply
        • 

          288

          ) SVRK
          June 5, 2011 at 9:09 pm

          Hi,

          After considering lot of options, weighing my long-term plans, I went ahead and purchased 70-200mm VRII F2.8 G lens yesterday (A store was offering one year interest-free installments option in Tokyo). I realized that it is the quality of a single most picture that gives me satisfaction at the end of the day than having lot of general quality pictures. I have posted this picture (http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/321016/size/big/cat/500/ppuser/233600, this is just one of three shots I took, a keep rate of 33%) which explains the kind of pictures one can take with this setup and I doubt neither 300F4 nor 28-300 can do it, from my number of test shots experience. I also purchased 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters, after getting more than satisfactory performance of these with 70200f2.8vrii. I may not use it as a regular 300mm lens, I may insert TC when situation demands while carrying a flexible and reliable zoom, I realized that can carry this setup for half of day without much physical fatigue.

          I agree that 300 F4 may be good on sharpness basis compared to 70200f2.8vrii+converter option on a very bright day but i doubt it can work even on a cloudy evening or on a trying day; I couldn’t take sharp pictures with 300f4 handheld under shop lightings (which is brighter than my home lighting or any lighting I can think of). So, I reached a conclusion that non-VR300f4 is impractical for a hand holdable setup, and planned to wait for purchasing when Nikon releases VR model of 300 f4 (my first priority) or go for an f2.8 300 mm (which is strictly a tripod lens for all practical purposes, as I couldn’t hold it for more than 20-30min for test shoot) when my finances permit. Amen.

          Reply
    • 

      273

      ) Don
      May 29, 2011 at 4:56 am

      Hi Angie,

      If you have time, you might want to read the ENTIRE thread rather than some of the more recent reviews. Yes, there have been some issues with the 28-300mm however, many have found that it does what a lens of this caliber should do. By purchasing a lens with such a broad focal range, you are going to come across short comings. This is the nature of the beast. Doug, Eugene, myself and a few others have presented what I would consider non-biased, non-emotional, real-world reviews of the lens. Another thing to consider is that an FX lens is going to perform differently on a DX body. Hence, FX and DX. Your milage may vary. To sum up again (not for you but for others), the 28-300mm is not pro glass, is a general purpose lens, lighter than pro glass if you are traveling with lenses, has limitations based on its 28-300mm specifications. I would recommend that you go to a shop, have them let you test a few in-house and see what you come away with. At the end of the day, just enjoy shooting and do not let yourself be drawn too much to the technical side of the debate.

      Cheers,

      Don

      Reply
      • 

        278

        ) Angie
        May 29, 2011 at 8:05 am

        Dear Don,

        Thank you for your speedy response.
        I have read all comments carefully and you are informative to me.
        This is the greatest thing I’ve recieved from this web…

        Angie

        Reply
72. 

    271

    ) Eleanor Maw
    May 29, 2011 at 2:23 am

    If you are moving up from DX to FX and bought a Nikon D700 or one of the three D3 bodies why buy a crap lens like the Nikon 28-300, a friend of mine did and thought that it was going to be good as the 18-200 on his D90, he asked me my opinion on his new 28-300, so I borrowed it for a weekend, even my Nikon 24-120 VR worked better on my D3s & D700, and that lens is noted not to give a great performance, my advise would be to buy a 35mm f2 and a 70-300 VR as these two lens a great on full frame FX Nikons and will cost you less money.

    Reply
    • 

      275

      ) Don
      May 29, 2011 at 5:12 am

      @Elenore,

      You might want to re-read the post by Angie. She said D7000, not D700. See: http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/slr/consumer/d7000 for the D7000 specs. As for the 28-300mm being crappy, that is subjective and pretty much limited to your opinion. Others here have expressed positive reviews of the lens, so again, that comes down to your opinion. Quote: “why buy a crap lens like the Nikon 28-300″. Really? Kind of hard to take you serious why this is the best that you can express yourself. There are ways to express your displeasure with a product. Anyway…..

      Reply
      • 

        276

        ) Doug
        May 29, 2011 at 7:16 am

        I’m glad a couple of people already responded to those recent comments so poor innocent readers and search engines don’t latch onto marginal viewpoints accidentally… :) I would guarantee that the 28-300VR exceeds the technical skills of 99.99% of amateur photographers, and competent professionals aren’t coming here for advice!

        Doug

        Reply
        • 

          277

          ) Don
          May 29, 2011 at 8:04 am

          Game, set, match: Doug! :)

          Reply
          • 

            279

            ) Angie
            May 29, 2011 at 8:31 am

            Dear Don & Doug,

            Let me summarize my part as an entry level.
            On your opinion, to get D 7000 and 28-300 or with 18-200
            which one I should get , DX or FX lense on DX body?

            Thank you for your patience.

            Angie ^_^

            Reply
            • 

              280

              ) Don
              May 29, 2011 at 8:50 am

              Hi Angie,

              No problem with helping you. I am glad that you find the suggestions and comments helpful. As for your dilemma. You are using a DX camera. In this case, I think it would make sense to use a DX lens, i.e. the 18-200mm. If you use the 28-300mm, your focal lengths will be off. What I mean is that instead of having a true 28-300mm on your D7000, you would have something like 39 or 40-320-332mm or something like that. I did not do the exact math but your focal lengths shift (maybe Doug or Eugene can weigh in with the exact numbers). You would see no real benefit of using the 28-300mm over the 18-200mm other than a longer focal end, but you would loose the shorter end. Hope that helps.

              Cheers,

              Don
          • 

            281

            ) Angie
            May 29, 2011 at 4:23 pm

            Hi Don,

            Thank you so much!!!

            Angie

            Reply
            • 

              282

              ) Eugene Stevens
              May 31, 2011 at 7:25 am

              If you have a DX body, I would not recommend this lens as well. While I had DX bodies (still have two, I did make the choice to only purchase full frame lenses because I knew down the road I would purchase a full size sensor body which I did when Nikon came out with the D700. I do not regret my puchase of the 28-300 or my 80-400 VR and they have a place in my bag with my three 2.8 , two 1.4 lenses and my 105 macro. It is nice to have choices.
            • 

              283

              ) Angie
              May 31, 2011 at 7:46 am

              HI Eugene,

              Thank for sharing your info and advice.
              Your team are so kind to me.
              I haven’t made any decision yet.
              If FX body is your recommendation,
              should I take 28-300 and Macro 105 f 2.8
              into consideration for my original interest
              in Bokeh & landscape..
73. 

    284

    ) Eugene Stevens
    June 2, 2011 at 5:52 am

    Angie, I am not recommending a FX over a DX camera. What I was saying is that if you were thinking of purchasing a FX camera in the future I would purchase FX lenes even if I currently had DX cameras (which I did). My DX lens (a 12-24 ?) was purchased for a family trip to California before I purchased the D700. After that trip (and before I purchased the D700) I purchased the 14-24 2.8 lens and I have considered selling my DX lens; however, I might use it with an underwater housing and my Fuji S5 so I still have the lens. As I have stated above, the lens purchase will most likely be with you longer than your camera so I would purchase the best lens for a specific situation or type of shooting that you can afford. My experience with landscape is not significant; however, I tend to utilize the wide angle range. My experience with my 105 is that it is my least utilized lens and I use it strickly for macros. Where I might utilize that lens, I prefer the 85 1.4 for its Bokeh. One caviate, with the cameras being better at the higher ISOs, the faster lenses may not be as important as before expecially if price considerations are paramount.

    Reply
    • 

      285

      ) Angie
      June 2, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Dear Eugene,

      Thank for sharing your great experience.
      It’s quite precise info I’ve got.

      Angie

      Reply
      • 

        289

        ) Akumar
        June 27, 2011 at 6:53 pm

        I used a 18-200 last year with my D90 when I was in Kenya. I liked the wide angle but I think I missed some of the close-up shots. Recently, I got athe 28-300 lens when I went to Yellowstone and I was able to get good close-up shots. But I missed some wide-angle shots. Therfore I plan to get another lens for the wide angle. I also appreciated the Bokeh produced bey the 28-300 which did not occur well with the 18-200 previously.

        Reply
74. 

    286

    ) Don
    June 2, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    I concur with Eugene Angie.

    Get a great lens and keep it forever. Sort of like a diamond. I know that I will keep the three core Nikon lenses I have and upgrade to the D4 (if it ever arrives) when Nokia starts selling it. One good thing is that Nokia lenses retains much of their value.

    Reply
75. 

    287

    ) Angie
    June 3, 2011 at 4:24 am

    Dear Don,

    Thank you for all your great comments.
    Nikon is the most favorite gear.

    Angie

    Reply
76. 

    292

    ) IM
    August 15, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Has anyone used 28-300mm with a Nikon D5000? What are the pros and cons? Do you recommend? Thanks.

    Reply
    • 

      293

      ) Doug
      August 15, 2011 at 9:12 am

      I use the 28-300VR heavily on full frame (D700); however, I picked up a D5000 body in a trade and have tried the lens with the D5000. I think it works quite well. My experience is that the D5000 AF works pretty well. The 28-300VR is sharp enough for the 12 MPixel sensor. Also, Scott Bourne has noted that he uses the 28-300VR on a D7000, which is even more demanding, and he seems quite satisfied with it.

      As an all-in-one lens, the 18-200VR might be a better fit on crop sensor (and cheaper), but the 28-300mm range is certainly useful, especially if you have something like a 10-24 or 10-20, 11-16, etc. to cover the wide end (or if you don’t care about wide angle). 28-300VR is a fairly big and expensive lens. As an alternative, the 70-300VR performs quite well and is considerably cheaper. Pros for the 28-300VR are the close minimum focus distance (mine performs excellently for closeup shooting as well) and better build quality. Cons are finicky auto-focus and a tendency to flare in low-light/night shooting. This is not atypical for a super-zoom lens. Bokeh is perfectly respectable.

      The main drawback on a D5000 vs. full frame or D7000 would be the f/5.6 aperture, given the high ISO performance of the D5000 (which is not bad, but is poor by today’s standards). ISO 3200 is not so great, and you really should try to stick with ISO 800. Shooting in decent light or on tripod is no problem.

      I formerly had some reservations about the 28-300VR on DX, but I think it is OK especially if you are considering moving to full frame some day or upgrading to a D7000, D400, etc. down the road. I do think the 18-200VR is probably a better superzoom for most people if you want to never change lenses, but it is a poorer long-term investment.

      Doug

      Reply
77. 

    294

    ) Eleanor Maw
    August 23, 2011 at 9:55 am

    I have bought one of these lens off a friend who hated it, I don’t blame him as he uses FX Nikon nowadays and was getting a lot of failed photos and he is a guy who likes to get quick shots with ease, I on the other hand look at what any lens can offer, one this lens works just fine on my Nikon DX bodies like my D90 & D7000, no problem great shots for a zoom lens, I have used the 28-300 on my D3s with mixed feelings, but sometime I am getting some great photos from it, I bought it for £500 secondhand and I have no regrets buying it, but if I only used FX Nikons I would not of bothered with it, but no complains on my DX Nikons.

    Reply
    • 

      295

      ) Nasim Mansurov
      August 23, 2011 at 10:33 pm

      Eleanor, thanks for sharing, I am glad that you like your 28-300mm!

      Reply
78. 

    298

    ) JANAK
    September 22, 2011 at 9:56 am

    i Want New Lance with my Nikon d700

    witch is best ?? nikon 24-120 vr ii N series or Nikon 28-300 vr ii ??

    Price and work wise witch is best ???

    Reply
    • 

      299

      ) Eugene Stevens
      September 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm

      Janak, as you can see from all the above posts, “best” depends upon how you shoot (low light, more telephoto than wide (or visa versa)). While the lens characteristics are similar, depending upon your budget, shooting style, and subjects (as well as what other lenses you have) the definition of the “best” lens might be very different. I have been very pleased with my 28-300 which permits me to utilize one body in most non critical photo opportunities. I used it for my grandson’s 3rd birthday party ( http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Family/James-3rd-Birthday-Party/19003426_csSFwg#1476438946_8FQJVdF ) and while I could have gotten better photos with my 80-200, and 28-70 2.8 I do not regret using the 28-300. The speed of the shooting, lighter equipment, less bodies, made using the 28-300 a good choice in this situation. If I was shooting a wedding or a more important assignment, I would have used the 2.8 lenses. What I am trying to say, is that what is “best” for you depends upon many factors with the most important being what you are trying to achieve. None of us can say what is “best” for your situation.

      Reply
79. 

    300

    ) Larry Koltys
    November 18, 2011 at 9:22 am

    I have read (with great interest) from the beginning (don’t know how many cups of coffee later) the on-going commentary. Some great views and observations. Thanks to all. Hi to Nasim who I’ve corresponded with before when buying my D3s. I think I find myself on that (as one post said) on the fence with barbed wire on top! My dilemma… Which lens to get as my “street” (like that name) lens. I’m going exclusively with FX lenses (selling 10.5mm, 17-55mm, and 18-200mm). I currently have a 14-24mm, 24-85mm f2.8-4 D, 85mm f1.4 (old version) and 80-400mm. So I am trying to decide between the 28-300mm (at the center of this debate), the 24-70mm f2.8 or the 70-200mm f2.8. Not an easy call as all three have their place and niche. One thing (which I think is noteworthy) that was omitted in the above discussion was, what is your end use going to be, just looking at your shots on a computer monitor, TV screen, self published book or prints and if so what size? For me, I want the option to publish a book (I have done a few Blurb books which have a link on my website) or have prints made, usually fine art paper up to 16 X 20′s. So with that in mind, please chime in. I think my first choice would be the 70-200mm as sharpness is a paramount concern. The 64k question, however, is could I use it as an everyday ‘leave on the body’ lens. I don’t think the weight would bother me, but the bulk and size… would that make it unwieldy to walk around with in everyday situations. Since it also depends a great deal on your subject matter, mine is mostly landscapes and cityscapes. Architectural, people interaction and the like. With the proceeds from the sale of the aforementioned lenses, the cost is not a factor in this case. So please, comments are welcomed and thanks for a very enlightening and lively discussion.

    Reply
80. 

    301

    ) Eugene Stevens
    November 21, 2011 at 7:46 am

    While I have three 2.8 zooms, two 1.4 primes, the 28-300 seems to garner more than 50% of my shots. Whether it is not desiring or able to swap lenses on the boat below Niagara Falls or fear of mugging in the market street in Tunis there appears to be many times an all around lens is a nice compromise. When I took the day trip to Pompei, I knew that a rolling bag would not work and that I could not carry my faster lenses for that long, and I do not regret my using my 28-300 for that day trip. Most of my forum shots were with the 14-24; however, most of the others were with the 28-300. No regrets.

    Reply
81. 

    302

    ) Jay
    November 24, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Absolutely wonderful review, thank you very much for all the work you put into these.

    Reply
82. 

    303

    ) Meril
    February 6, 2012 at 4:42 am

    HI there Nasim and Everybody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank you all for your comments and reviews … Seems like a Tugg of war . I have a nikon 18-200mm Lens k.. and its like really user friendly and good for day to day photography … I had the 18-105mm lens and the 55-200mm lens which I sold together to buy the 18-200mm lens .

    Recently I have bought the Nikon 105mm Micro ( AMAZING MACRO LENS ) for my tiny world pics and Portaits of my new baby and family people ….

    OK MY QUESTION HERE NOW IS … should i buy the 28-300mm Lens ?? RECENTLY i have been taking pic of cricket which i play in the weekends and the pics at 200mm ARE NOT BAD ACTUALLY ….. IF i buy the 28-300mm Lens from Nikon .. I will LOOOSE 10MM AT THE WIDE END … will that actually MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IS DAY TO LIFE .. FAMILY AND OUTDOOR SHOOTS?? IS IT REALLY WORTH IT ?? HEARD IT IS AN AMAZING tavel lens too … what do I DO ??

    I AM SORRY I PUT LOT OF QUESTIONS IN ONE PARAGRAPH .. :) ) . i HAVE A D90 :) Please shareeeee your valuable experiences Please…

    I would be greatful to Nisim and everybody elses reviews on my above quieries

    regards,
    Meril

    Reply
    • 

      304

      ) Eugene Stevens
      February 9, 2012 at 8:16 am

      With your DX camera, you do need to think about the 1.5 mult factor. If you are thinking that down the road you might purchase an FX camera you might want to consider this lens. Your DX and your 28-200 mm lens will provide the same zoom capability as the 28- 300 on the FX camera. I personally would not purchase the 28-300 given that you have its DX version and are using a DX camera. If you are considering an FX camera, for me in shooting outdoor daylight field sports for high school yearbooks with my FX D700, I stopped using my 80-400 because the 28-300 gave me still decent closeups further away and permitted me to capture action closer to me without cutting off the ball carrier’s appendages. I have found myself using my 14-24 2.8 lens less because in well lighted situations, the 28 mm has been usually sufficient at the wide end. The lens that have suffered from disuse since my purchase of the 28-300 are my 28 -70, 80-200 2.8s and my 80-400 VR. I will not sell those lenses because of the superior low light capabilities (my 2.8s) and the longer reach of the 80-400 VR.

      Reply
      • 

        306

        ) Meril
        February 22, 2012 at 5:30 am

        Thank you very much Eugene for your expert advise .. yes my dx format cameral will work best with the 18-200 hmm lens that i have .. thanks for throwing light on this matter .. reallly appreciated ..

        I have dropped the plan of the 28-30mm mm lens . Since you mentioned the 18-200 dx lens gives the similar reach on the d90 I WILL stick by it ..

        once again thanks for your time and effor to reply ..

        meril

        Reply
83. 

    305

    ) Carl Sanders
    February 22, 2012 at 4:29 am

    Strange that all the reviews we have read have classed the 28 – 300 lens as excellent and still mentions some of the cons of owning the lens. Rave reviews not only by Ken Rockwell, take him or leave him, so not sure why there is now a feeling that it is not worth purchase. We are just about to purchase the 28 – 300 as apart from some the issues mentioned it appears that other similar Nikon lenses suffer similar problems. For the price? From what we have seen the lens performs for the price £ 574 + VAT, this is an FX lens attached to an FX camera, D800.

    Reply
84. 

    308

    ) Andrea Johnson
    March 19, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Thank you for the excellent review. I have been considering the 28-300 for several months for specific sports situations where I am not able to carry my go to lenses, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses. I own the D3s and just received the D4, and would only plan to use the 28-300 for specific sports situations. I am headed to a heliskiing trip in Canada , covering a documentary project, and would use the 2.8 lenses from the helicopter but the 28-300 lens on while skiing/boarding. I would also use the 28-300 for long backpacking trips, rock climbing, or kayaking where I simply cannot carry the larger lenses. Hoping I maybe able to get enough feedback today to finalize my decision, been on the fence too long and now need to receive the lens by Wed. Much appreciate feedback from others using or testing the lens in action sports situations, mostly bright daylight, and between 5.6 to 11 apetures.

    Reply
85. 

    309

    ) Eugene Stevens
    March 25, 2012 at 2:30 am

    “I would also use the 28-300 for long backpacking trips, rock climbing, or kayaking where I simply cannot carry the larger lenses.” A concise statement of why i purchased mine. Recovering from a knee replacement 6 days ago and scheduling a shoulder replacement after my May and early June weddings I may be able to carry my 2.8s better when I might need them; however, the 28-300 VR will still be my walk around lens as well as my family portrat special events photos lens. I will use it for the weddings but just for my walk around the reception area shots.

    Reply
86. 

    311

    ) TorontoCP
    March 26, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Thank you for the wonderful review …I just came across the 18-300 rumor at this site..looks like this one will take over the 28-300 but yea this is going to be only for the crop cameras ….

    http://www.nikongeartalk.com/2012/03/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-18-300mm-f3-5-5-6g-ed-vr-lens-leaks-europe/

    cheers

    Reply
87. 

    312

    ) Nikon Gear talk
    March 26, 2012 at 11:20 am

    yea for crops its going to replace

    Reply
88. 

    313

    ) Srini
    March 27, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Although it is a lens review, I am learning a lot!

    Thank you so much for the detailed review.

    I understand the all-in-one comfort of a lens of this type, why would any one buy this lens with so much problems. Besides comforts, I guess cost is probably a major deciding factor.

    Reply
    • 

      316

      ) Eugene Stevens
      June 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm

      I never thought a wide angle and telephoto lens could produce any quality with compromises I would not be able to accept. This lens changed my mind. Regarding problems, I have not had any issues with this lens. It is not a low light 2.8; however, it has provided many nice surprises by its versitility.

      Reply
89. 

    314

    ) tatan
    April 24, 2012 at 5:32 am

    hello nassim,
    i just want to ask if the 28-300 will works fine on my D90…? is the lens perform well in terms of auto focus..? does the picture quality is fine..? it is worth if i replace my 55-300DX with this lens..? thanks..

    tatan

    Reply
90. 

    315

    ) Paul Newport
    April 28, 2012 at 12:34 am

    Hi Nasim, I live in Norfolk, UK, and have had a lifetime passion for birds. I have progressed from digiscoping to digital for bird photography using my Canon 300mm f2.8 is usm lens, usually with a x2 Extender. I have been reading reviews of the Nikon 28-300mm f3.5-f.6G ED VR11 lens and just wanted your opinion regarding comparisons between the lens’s for image quality, speed of AF, portability etc. Many thanks Nasim. Paul

    Reply
    • 

      317

      ) Eugene Stevens
      June 18, 2012 at 8:42 am

      I do not understand your request. You have a Canon body, a 300 mm 2.8 lens and you are asking about the Nikor 28-300? Your x2 extender on your canon lens gives you a 5.6 lens. If you were to use the Nikor lens with a 2x would be taking the lens’ worst feature and making it twice as bad (F 12). Both Nikon’s and Canon’s 300 mm 2.8 lens are far superior in all categories except portability.

      Reply
91. 

    318

    ) Tony Hills
    July 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Hi Nasim & thanks for another great review.

    I have the 28/300, the 70/300 & sig 150/500 (amongst others)
    I have just got my D800 (up from D7000)

    I bought the 28/300 as a walkabout lens only, for me the results are good enough.
    The 70/300 does work much better in it’s range – very well I find.
    The sig 150/500 does very badly on the D800 from my testing – & I mean BAD.

    I’m waiting for a 16/35 f4 & will complete my kit with a 24/70 f2.8 except :

    I would like to reach 400mm, the 70/200 f2.8 & a TC20eiii seems the only
    way to get there. Any other suggestions (as the cost of the 2.7/TC is quite high.
    What about the 80/400 ??

    Thanks, Tony.

    Reply
92. 

    321

    ) RxGus
    November 1, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Nasim,
    Thank you for all your hard work!

    I currently use the d5100 and 18-200 lens. I travel a lot, and take mostly documentary style travel photos (a mix of landscape, architecture, and portrait). I love the 18-200 because I can take my camera and leave everything else… aka, my 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 lenses.

    I am strongly considering the d600, and was planning to pair it with this lens, but I am concerned that the high resolution of the d600 would increase any misgivings in the 28-300.

    Do you have any experience with this combination? Are the results acceptable (baseline: 18-200 on a d7000 = acceptable). Or, would I be better off with an 24- 120 and “forgetting” about the extra reach I had with the 18-200.

    Reply
93. 

    322

    ) john
    November 10, 2012 at 2:06 am

    Hi All

    Has anybody looked tuning the 24-300 to their camera with AF Fine tune on the D800 it was pretty bad, but when tuned to the camera (+5) all snapped into focus and the lens is OK you must also download the latest distortion table from Nikon this will correct the pin & barrel issues on the fly.

    It is a little softer than the big pro lenses, but cost less and for most use is very convenient. The real world also suffers from heat haze so at 300mm this start to “creep” into the equation and no lens can correct this no matter how much it costs.

    A lot of the probs can be resolved in Photoshop for the price and ease of use and the all important “getting” the shot it is worth having

    Reply
94. 

    323

    ) Michael
    November 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    What would occur if you would use the AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens on an Fx body such as the D600? Would there be horrible vignetting? could it be corrected in Lightroom?

    Reply
95. 

    324

    ) Phui
    May 8, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    Any idea how 28-300 nikkor pair with tc1.4teleconverter, I love shooting birds

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply