What do you think of af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f3-5-5 for travel

<p>Hi friends: I travel a lot. I have a Nikon D700 and some fine glasses. Last time I travel with my 17-35mm f/2.8 a 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. Besides I carried my Mafrotto tripod of aluminiun. I got nice pictures (I still need more creative pictures) and I was happy with the results... BUT! When you walk more than 4 hours with that weight in your back you begin to wish you had something ligther. SO I was wondering if this 28-300mm could be a solution. Is it sharp? Don´t you think is a bit slow? But anyway I would prefer to travel heavy to have bad pictures. I would really like your opinion. Thanks a lot</p>

<p>Travel heavy. :-)</p>

<p>I have a D700, an assortment of good lenses, a flash and a tripod. Sometimes I wish I was superwoman, because of the weight I have to carry. But I wouldn't want to miss a single one of my good lenses when travelling...</p>

<p>Carlos, I have all of those lenses except for the 50mm/f1.4. Essentially, there is no substitution for good technique and good equipment. If you want quality, bring the 17-35mm/f2.8 and 70-200mm/f2.8 plus tripod. The 28-300 is an OK lens for casual photography, especially on the D700, which is less demanding on lenses. If you put the 28-300 on the D7000, it'll show all of its flaws. I like to use the 28-300 shooting children outdoors since sometimes I need to go from wide to long quickly. But f5.6 is a serious limitation indoors and distortion on a 11x zoom is quite obvious.</p>

<p>I carry a heavy camera backpack frequently. The key is that whenver you are standing instead of walking, put the pack down on the ground. In most situations I don't need to be carrying the heavy bag all the time; whenever you have a chance, give yourself an opportunity to rest. I go hiking with either a 500mm/f4 or 200-400mm/f4 a lot, and that is how it works for me.</p>

<p>The 28-300 Nikkor should be as good or better than the old 28-200 AF G lens that was great. With high ISO capability of D700 this lens is fast enough for most travel places.<br>

Add to it the 50/1.4 for night photography.<br>

You could leave at home the 70-200 and the 17-35/2.8 lenses, both very heavy and large.<br>

Unless you have photographer's pass for sporting and other paid events, your large 70-200 lens could be found in your bag and barred from entry.<br>

The 17-35 wide lens would be used in museums, narrow city streets, etc. but perhaps you could do well with the 28mm on FX.<br>

So, travel light with 28-300 and 50/1.4.</p>

If you travel in order to make pictures, it would be a mistake to take the approach of traveling light. Travel is one of the

easiest ways to see the world with new eyes (instead of eyes and brain being tired of the familiar) and make

interesting images. Why would you compromise on equipment at a time when you are in a good position to make

some of your best pictures? You have a great kit for travel photograpy; take it along where ever you go. If you have a

problem with the weight, exercise more and carry even more gear with you - after I started using a 200/2, I quickly

stopped complaining about the weight of the 70-200. By having your body get used to greater weight it will handle

what you now use with ease.

 

Besides, creating art is not supposed to be easy, or light. If it is easy, someone (likely many people) will have done it

already. Be prepared to suffer some discomfort and you have a better chance of being very happy with what you

achieve.

<p>My impression (I've never even seen this lens) is that it's expensive and heavy compared with the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D G that I own. The 28-200 I leave on the camera as an over-sized body cap, replacing it with bigger lenses as I need them. I get the impression that the 28-300 is large enough that it might not suffice as a "default" and be a deliberate choice.<br />

<br />

That said, there have been times when I wished I had something longer or stabilised on me, but I'm not sure I'd have compromised weight to get it. (Generally, if I'm not carrying my 150-500 Sigma, it's because I didn't want to have to.) It's a continuum, though - bigger lens, more flexibility, and how much you want to carry is your decision. I've recently got an 80-200 f/2.8 partly because I don't always want to carry my 200 f/2 VR, so for me the 80-200 is the light(er)weight option.</p>

<p>Not so long ago I tested a Nikkor 28-300 vs a Tamron 28-300. I made some photos on rather high isoos, so the VR wasn't used because I have the old NON-VC version. I thought the brand would be in the ezxif, but there only the focal length and I could not see any real difference in the pics, the was some difference, but I couldn't not tell what was better. Tested on e D700.<br>

D700 Tamron 28-300 210mm f10 1/320 200iso photo not from the test.</p><div></div>

<p>another one<br>

D700 Tamron 28-300 30mm f8 1/1000 iso 200</p>

<p>another one<br>

D700 Tamron 28-300 30mm f8 1/1000 iso 200</p><div></div>

I think a snap and shoot camera would be cheaper and lighter

I travlel a lot too but I always carry my D700, AF 35 f/2, AFS 24 G and 105 Micro G. The rest I leave it at the hotel.

But when I leave home I carry as much as I can. Then I carry just what I think I will need for the day

<p>Also please take a look at this thread from about a year ago, as Bob Krist and Bjorn Rorslett commented on the 28-300: <a href="00X75W">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X75W</a></p>

<p>They both have favorable comments when the 28-300 is used on FX bodies such as the D700 and even D3X. Krist is a respected photographer and teacher. His images on National Geographics Travelers are well known and he teaches short photo seminars. He also works with Nikon School on some of their instruction videos, and Nikon USA paid him to shoot promotional images for the 28-300. Therefore, while Krist's credentials are certainly excellent, you also know that he is not going to say anything negative about this particular Nikon lens or for that matter anything about Nikon, which he admits in his own post there. So please keep that in mind.</p>

<p>Carlos, the creativity is not in the bag, but in you. Are you really using all those focal lengths? Look at your own favorite/best images. What focal lengths were they made with? Maybe like so many here, you need to put in more time in the gym and carry a huge bag with Nikon's full range of glass, but I seriously doubt it.</p>

<p>The do-it-all zooms may work for you but they have their limitations.</p>

<p>From your posts before, I see you intelligently exploring different strategies/ways of working, and how they fit in with your vision. energies and real world contingencies. Many very famous photographers (some in current times) use very little equipment, are widely published, and famous by any measure.</p>

<p>You might want to try something very light and simple, like a Fuji X 100, on one of your trips.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is a wonderful lens for your intended use. Is it sharp? Yes. Is it slow? If you are talking about AF, no. </p>

<p>If you're making 60" prints from your photos I'd consider sticking with high-end lenses. If you're just posting them on Flickr or making 8.5x11" prints, any lenses will be fine. When I travel with my D700 I take the 28-200G and 20mm. I want to enjoy the places I'm visiting, not be bogged down with excessive weight and bulk, especially if it's hot out. Those two lenses work just fine for the 14" or smaller prints I make.</p>

<p>i've done a fair bit of travel photography, and I couldn't conceive taking a tripod and two or three zooms with me. If you are travelling to take photographs, then do as you please, but if you are travelling for the joy of it and want some nice photographs as well, then get yourself an Olympus EP-3 and a Panasonic 20mm pancake lens, perhaps a little 45mm lens as well, and enjoy your holiday.</p>

<p>I do my best to travel light, and I've found that I'd rather limit my range of focal lengths than limit my lens quality. I miss some shots, and I end up with fewer pictures, but more that I'm really happy with. I second the post by Luis above asking: what focal lengths have you used for your favourite pictures? Is it consistent?</p>

According to this shot I can see that bothe the nikkor and the tamron are good lenses specially for the traveller

I have seen canon 28-300 and they were perfect to use even though it's too heavy

I am thinking of one for my travel

<p>I took 3 lenses to Hawaii with me. One was a 50mm f/1.4, 16mm f/2.8 and the other was the 28-300. I think, for the most part, the combination worked out very well. It was pretty convenient, relatively lightweight, and the results were pretty good. I was happy with what I ended up with.<br>

Here are some pictures. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627149920913/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627149920913/</a></p>

<p>A lot of the problem is also whether you as the photographer is happy with the compromises you make when you select the lenses you carry. If the lens is adequate (I've not used it, so I'm saying this from a position of complete ignorance), you find that you're able to do more with it (e.g. no lens changes), and you don't mind fixing any small gripes e.g. distortion in post, then it may indeed be a good choice.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if every time you look at a shot, you wish that you had x or y lens, irrespective of whether it would have made that much of a difference outside of pixel peeping, you may be better off "going heavy". I'm not accusing you of being a pixel peeper, only that the psychological aspect shouldn't be ignored =)<br>

The addition of a small, fast standard lens would make a good combination.</p>

It doesn't require pixel peeping to see the difference between a superzoom and professional grade lenses. I've shot a

lot of office portraits in the past 15 months and the clarity of the 85/1.4 shots is immediately obvious compared to

images shot with the 24-120/4 or the 18-105 DX even in small web images. The difference is present at all spatial

frequencies basically, though many people are oblivious to this before shown side by side.

<p>One of the things about "professional" glass is that it's heavy and less likely to be brought on a leisurely vacation than say a lens that has most focal lengths. In the "real world" you'll find that people don't care what equipment you used to get a shot. They just care about the picture that's in front of them. If you go to a museum and see photos on the wall, absolutely none of the photos have a caption "taken with blah-blah camera and lens at x-aperture." It will, however, say "injet printing" or "silver" print.<br>

I may be opening a can of worms here, but seriously, nobody outside of dedicated photography forums cares about what lens you used to capture a shot. Some of my best photos were taken with a point and shoot camera, from a Nikon L35 to a Canon Powershot SD950. The reason was that the camera was small enough to be taken everywhere and was.<br>

If you browse my photos on the link I posted in a different message and look through the photostream you'll see that I used a variety of cameras and lenses to capture images whether they're expensive or cheap.<br>

The 28-300 is a fantastic lens that provides opportunities and pictures that a lens of say 24-70, 70-200, a 24mm f/1.4, or a 85mm f/1.4 won't because the person would be busy changing lenses or the lenses would be at home because they're too heavy. The 28-300 was the first zoom lens I had purchased since the 75-150 back in the 1980's. I find it to be a fantastic lens. Before that I only used primes, even when shooting corporate parties. It was a hassle at times when I only had one body, but that's how it was.<br>

I go with the motto of shoot with what you have available with you at that moment. If all a person has is a "non professional" 28-300 or 24-120 with them then great. Go out and take some pictures. If they have a pro lens then all the better. In the end, the results are what really matters.</p>

<p>Forgot to mention that I took comparison pictures with a Hasselblad 180mm at f/11 and a 28-300 at 180mm f/11 both with the Nikon D700. The results were that the zoom was slightly sharper than the blad and showed ever so slightly more detail. I was shocked.</p>

Nathan, of course most people do not care about what equipment was used to make a photo. That doesn't mean that

they do not care about the quality of it. They might not be able to pin down what they like about an image due to

inexperience with evaluating images critically, but that doesn't mean they won't have preferences. They will like some

images and not others. Different lenses are just tools to create different visual results. The photographer chooses the

lens that will draw the image the way they want it drawn.

 

As to the weight of the bag, it doesn't bother me too much - in fact, carrying some load is good physical exercise.

 

You will always miss opportunities when you're taking photos, whether it is due to failing to be in the right place at the

right time, having the wrong settings on your camera, having a too slow lens, or whatever reason. Generally it is a

lack of appropriate planning and preparation for a shot. If you know what you're doing, you will avoid these by being

prepred and get the image. Of the millions of images you make in your life, it is only the quality of the best of them

that will matter. At least I want my best images to be as good as they can be, including content, idea and technical

quality as well. I do not have any difficulty finding subjects or ideas, and even when I shoot with a single prime all day

long I end up with a lot of material that works to my purposes. I do not need the opportunity to choose any focal length

at any instant. I do, however, need lenses that will let me shoot up close to small objects, correct converging verticals

in architecture, open up to an aperture that lets me simplify backgrounds so that they do not distract the viewer from

the main subject, and lenses that will let me obtain fast shutter speeds to stop subject movement in any light where I

can see. These options are mostly unavailable with the 28-300 in the kind of light that I want to shoot in. So it would not be useful to me, even if it had no quality

issues which of course it has, on top of all these limitations.

 

Of course, to another photographer, shooting with a prime might be a nightmare.

<p>I use my 28-300 for (Action) Event photography and for travel.<br>

It is very sharp even wide open at 28mm.</p>