New - Nikon 28-300mm vs old 70-300mm

<p>Can someone perhaps tell me is the 28-300mm will replace the older 70-300mm.<br>

I think the 28-300mm will cover a bigger range in mm, but will the picture quality be better than the 70-300mm.<br>

Do any body know of such comparison between the two?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't think so. It is a different lens with a different audience. I would buy the 70-300 for lack of funds for a 70-200, but would not even consider a 10X zoom lens. To many compromises IMHO.<br>

I expect the quality of the 70-300 to be far superior to the 28-300.</p>

<p>If the 28-200 part of the 28-300 lens is as good or better than the old Nikkor 28-200 G lens, then the 28-300 lens could be superior to the current 70-300 VR lens. After all it costs about 2X more.</p>

 

<p>I think its safe to say the new 70-300 VRII replaces all past versions of the 70-300 lens (of which there are several, and none VR). It is heavier, longer and fantastic.</p>

<p>No, it will not replace the 70-300, and no it will not be superior to the 70-300. The reason it costs so much is the ridiculous zoom range. This lens will be very similar to the ones Canon has been making for quite a few years now. They started with a 35-300 then replaced it with a 28-300 a few years ago.</p>

<p>All these superzooms offer mediocre quality in a convenient, but huge, all in one lens.</p>

<p>While the 70-300 VR is a good lens, especially on the tripod and stopped down, or at shutters 1/500 or faster, it is in the same category of "mediocre" lenses as described by John the Canon lenses. </p>

<p>It does not measure up to 300/4, 180/2.8 or even to 70-200 VR lenses.</p>

<p>It should be easy for Nikon to make a better lens over this 70-300 VR lens, especially if it costs that much. Pretty soon we will know.</p>

<p>Asking this question now is premature.</p>

The MTFs on the 28-300 are not promising.

<p>The new 28-300 could be the one lens solution for traveling for all FX users who are now using the 70-300VR as a lightweight traveling replacement for their 70-200/2.8VR beasts. In the past we needed an additional wide angle to standard zoom.<br>

In my opinion the main advantage of the new 28-300 over the 70-300 is its versatility and not its IQ.</p>

<p>My 70-300mm VR lens is excellent and I would never categorize it as mediocre, not for a second. My copy is as sharp as any f2.8 lens I've ever used all the way out to 300mm. But it is limited by the aperture of 4.5-5.6 in lower light situations, not it's quality.</p>

<p>I would agree with Michael rather than the assessment made by "John the Cannon" person which is quoted by Frank. My experience mimics that of Michael, even his comment on how sharp the lens is at 300mm. A professional critic has stated that the lens is not sharp at 300mm so perhaps the difference in opinions is more about individual copies rather than the design. My copy of the 70-300mm VR is as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR (original version and not the VR II which is I do not own). Dealing in absolutes is difficult. It would be helpful if the ciritcs that we read had the ability to test multiple copies of the same product rather than base their opinion on just one sample. That way defects and copies that were sub-standard and not up to manufacturer's specs could be detected and eliminated from the assessment. </p>

<p>In my opinion, sample variability is less common than people in online forums suggest. I've tried two copies of many lenses myself and three copies of one lens, and never noticed significant differences between them in terms of image quality. The "signature" of each lens in terms of how the images looked was also the same in each case. I think the alleged good and bad copies are mostly differences between the users / observers. And if there are genuinely bad samples around (which I believe to be the case but very rare except in the packages that get sent to Lloyd Chambers ;-)), then in my opinion they are one of the indicators of the quality of the lens in question and the manufacturer deserves all the negative criticism they get for such occurrences. It's the manufacturer's job to do quality control, not the customer's. I'm not going to buy six or ten copies of a lens just to find a minutely better sample and return the rest .. that's totally ecologically unsound, not to mention a huge waste of time.</p>

<p>The 70-300 VR I used for a few months didn't deliver acceptable clarity in the long end at any aperture, certainly not at f/5.6. It was "ok" at the short end. The new 28-300mm doesn't appear to be bad at all at 300mm f/5.6. Would I buy one? No. But I bet some photojournalists working with difficult to predict events will drop it in their bags.</p>

<p>John the Cannon? I guess a small typing glitch / grammatical error can lead to whole a new imaginary person... ;-)</p>

<p>This was taken with the 70-300 vr, at 300mm.</p>

<p><img src="http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee183/bobdein/photo-net/08-21-10.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Bob</p>

<p>There is nothing "ridiculous" about the quality of the new 28-300. It is in fact far better in its optical performance than I initially expected, and it keeps the good quality all the way up to 300mm. The near-focus performance is remarkably good for such a versatile lens.VR for once is really helpful as well.</p>

<p>The above are my findings after using the 28-300 for a few days. The lens is not without optical flaws by any means, but mostly these are in areas that don't bother me too much (geometric distortion being one example). The big surprise was for IR. Any zoom lens that can perform this well in IR, and having virtually zero focus shift for IR, will get my nod of approval. It does work well enough as the typical "traveller's lens" on my FX cameras too, but the main reason I'm keeping it is for the IR qualities.</p>

<p>I am fairly surprised by Bjorn's comment. Apparently he is the only person who has actually used the new 28-300 before posting to this thread. Obviously I have my doubts about a 11x zoom similar to the 18-200mm AF-S VR, but if it is as good as Bjorn puts it, that is not bad at all.</p>

<p>Bob Krist has used this lens and has posted his comments along with some pics, </p>

<p>http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/samples-with-the-new-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6g-ed-vr/</p>

<p>I have a 70-300mm lens which was Nikon's best kept secret for awhile (and at less than $600.). I've used it extensively and have no complaints. It's a very sharp lens even out to 300mm. It's certainly good enough for Jay Maisel who uses one as his all-purpose street lens. </p>

<p>I have been waiting anxiously for the new 28-300 and have pre-ordered one from B + H. This will now re[place my 70-300 as an all-purpose street lens and I'm sure Maisel has already bought one. I know Moose Peterson & Joe McNally are getting one (no lightweights for sure). When the 28-300 arrives (hopefully less than 6 months from now), I'll put it through its paces and report back here.</p>

<p>Both of the above are for DX & FX formats.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I'll be keeping a lookout for others who use this lens. It seems like a real winner after looking at Krtist's report & if it's any where near as good as the 70-300, I'll be a happy camper.</p>

<p>Brad</p>

 

<p>Concerning Bob Krist's blog, we already have a thread on it, and Bob himself commented on that: <a href="00X75W">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X75W</a></p>

<p>If you want a one-size-fits-all lens for FX, I am sure it'll be hard to beat the 28-300mm AF-S VR.</p>