Nikon 28-300 VR

<p>I did it, I broke down and bought the 28-300 while the rebates were active. I've been eying it for a while, but what finally drove me over the edge is that I have a D700 that is my primary body and I'm always stuck trying to decide 24-70 or 70-200. I know, if only everyone only had that problem. In particular I was shooting a major local 5k road race the other day. It was unpaid, so I only wanted to bring one body with me. For the finish line and in the middle of the course its easy, use the 70-200 no questions asked. Its the right lens for the job, and wow, fantastic results.</p>

<p>For the start line I love the 70-200 <strong>some of the time</strong> to get some pre-race photos that you can't get up close easily, but you really can't do a good job with only that lens. Its the wrong lens for the start of the race. So its swapping on and off the 24-70 or bring a second body. Same thing with around the house and family photos. The 24-70 and 70-200 are pro glass and its hard to use them as vacation or family glass.</p>

<p>So now the race strategy for me is to put on the 28-300 to start the race. Its slow glass, but I know how to work around it. I'll have wide angle for the start of it and then enough range for closeups where people are not running. Then after I move to the middle or finish line, switch to the 70-200 do the rest of my work with good glass. I might loose some shots to the slow glass, but I think I'll make up for it with more overall good shots.</p>

<p>I've shot about a dozen photos on the new lens (raw) and without any post processing the results are strange. Thats the best way to describe it. Not bad, but strange in terms of the distortion and vignetting. There is a fair amount of vignetting at 300mm. Process them in Lightroom and turn on the auto distortion control, and wow! Much much better. If you buy this lens and want it to preform, be prepared for some form of post processing. If you can accept that I think the post processing makes this lens a decent lens when you consider the range you get out of it. Without processing, its a lens of serious compromises.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I tried this lens for one afternoon and returned it immediately. I found it to be noticeably inferior to both the 24-70 and the 70-200. Especially at the longer end. Was unimpressed with sharpness/color/contrast/snap of the images.</p>

<p>Not that it was terrible (except at >200mm or so) and it is certainly convenient, but if you live and die with the 24-70/70-200 combo, I am not sure you will accept just "ok".</p>

<p>I do own the new version of the 70-300 and I do pair that lens with the 24-70 if I want to reduce weight. While that lens is still not perfect at > say 250mm or so, it does do a better job between 70-250 than the 28-300 in my hands.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you buy this lens and want it to preform, be prepared for some form of post processing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>mm For me it does not matter what lens i use, there is always som post processing involved, since i like to shoot RAW most of the time...<br>

For the rest : Congrats with your new lens !</p>

<p>Sounds like you made the right choice for your needs. Otherwise, as CPM wrote, some post processing is needed with whatever lens I use, so I can't hold that against any of them.<br>

For me, the 24-70 was a wrong compromise in terms of weight and size; the 28-300 too much of a compromise optically and too expensive for what it is. The 24-120 struck the right balance for me, only being too expensive too. This is in the end why we need those huge catalogs of lenses - they're all a compromise in one way or another, and we can only balance that against our needs, wants and budgets.<br>

Enjoy the 28-300!</p>

<p>I got the 28-300 several years ago and use it frequently. I'm not concerned with absolutely the finest sharpness all the time and the 28-300 is very convenient as a general purpose lens for my purposes (primarily photojournalism type stuff and documentation). I don't sell photos so they only have to please me. The 28-300 is not as sharp as the 24-70-200, but it's pretty close IMHO.</p>

<p>I kept my 24-70-200 and use them for indoor events where the f/2.8 is useful and I generally don't have to switch lenses a lot. But those are special events and for general use the 28-300 is probably on my camera 60-70% of the time.</p>

I bought the 28-300 last year. It's a nice everyday carry lens but does not compete with my 70-200 , 28-70 or fast prime

glass. A professional colleague has the Canon version that is better. I think that it is probably my weakest lens. That

being said it suits my needs for casual shooting warts and all. I shoot raw almost all the time so I am tied to post

processing.

<p>Sorry, but why would anyone want to stick a >10 times zoom on a full-frame DSLR? You just know that the optical quality is going to be pretty poor and the aperture pretty dim. The small, lightweight, one lens, image-stabilised megazoom solution already exists in bridge and compact cameras, and in most cases for far less money than just this one lens.</p>

<p>I figured I might get some push-back and of course support. I think like any lens including the 28-300, it is a purpose built lens. Its built for a use case. Just because it covers a large range doesn't mean it replaces everything I already own. My other glass stays for its intended purposes. For me the purpose is to have a lens that I can have mounted that will get me more shots because of the range even if the quality is not the same. Sometimes its better to have the shot than have nothing.</p>

<p>Why on a D700 when I could have purchased a point and shoot for the same or less? Because the D700 does low light very well and has a quality about it that is hard to duplicate. Its a full blown DSLR with the only compromise being the glass I'm sticking in front of it. A point and shoot super zoom has all the limitations of a point and shoot which also includes the glass.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm not trying to get into a flame war. Initial impressions for me is that it will solve a problem for me. For many its a lens of too many compromises and I respect that. Its not going to cut it as anything more than a general purpose lens. I would not shoot a wedding or indoor even with it, but I'll leave it on my D700 for all the times I'm not purpose shooting something else.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 28-300mm is a good lens. Anyone expecting it to be as sharp as the 24-70mm or 70-200mm is perhaps expecting too much, but it is certainly sharp enough and better than most give it credit for. When it comes to color and contrast, I don't believe it performs much differently than other Nikon lenses. Is it meant for indoor event photography? Of course not. But for what it is designed for, it gets the job done and does it well enough!</p>

<p>I have a 28-300mm and 24-70mm lens for my D700. When on vacation I keep the 28-300mm on the camera for most shots (Yellowstone and Grand Tetons). I have the camera in aperture priority, auto ASA, with lens set to f8. I shoot everything in RAW and use Lightroom to process files. Lightroom automatically corrects distortion and vignetting. I have some excellent panoramas with the lens at 200mm using 24 and 36 exposures - 3 rows of 8 and 4 rows of 9 images. These were of Lower Falls and Grand Prismatic springs. </p>

<p>I've been using the 28-300 since it came out in 2012 and love the lens. I see people write how terrible it is and how it's this or that and I just think it's their opinion. I use it on the D700 and it has been a great companion, though very heavy. The 24mm and 85mm f/1.4G that I use are almost just as heavy though. I found that the 28-300 is really a f/8 lens because using it at f/5.6 isn't the best thing on the planet, but at f/8 and higher (f/22) it's great. At f/11 it beats out my Hasselblad Carl Zeiss 180mm f/4 CF lens and that was one of the sharper lenses that they made for the V series. It also is sharper than the Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 AIs. Now granted both of those lenses were made for film so that could be the reasoning, but I still use those two lenses extensively with my D700.<br>

Here's my flickr page for some examples of what I took. Overall I think it's a fine lens and the limiting factor was that my camera only had 12MP. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627518315711/</p>