Bob Krist Review on 28-300 f3.5-5.6 ED VR

[bill_deegan2]

<p>Bob Krist review & samples on above lens. Just his opinion.<br>

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

Regards,</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all Bob Krist is a fine photographer and instructor. However, I would suggest keep in mind that he has strong financial ties with Nikon USA. He is the instructor or co-instructor in many of the Nikon School instructional DVDs, and some of those are very well done. If you read that blog, Krist points out that Nikon is using some images he captured with the 28-300 for the advertising campaign for that very lens. Therefore, I am 100% sure that Krist will only have good things to say about it; I don't even have to read the entire blog.</p>

<P>

It is good to hear some first-hand experience with this new lens, but I wouldn't consider this as a lens review in the sense that it critiques this lens.

</P>

[RaymondC]

<p>when i go overseas, i cannot stand such a slow lens. i had a v quick look at his blog. some of them were low light pictures. i have a D70 on travel, not a FX but I doubt there is that much diff - ie, 2 full stops and to meet Bob's pro quality. <br /> but he does say in the past he used a 18-200mm and now has this 28-300mm and he says he also employ a 24/1.4 and a 85/1.4. he also tend to like not so fast lenses, ie. 16-85/4 70-300 AFS VR and he does shoot off a tripod and get permits when required (on a podcast I seen).</p>

<p>at home casually when i go out, d70 + 18-200 to me is ifne with a tripod stopped down. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Meh. He says "It’s sharp end to end". I've (obviously) not seen this lens, but according to Nikon's published MTF data, whatever it has in the corners of full frame at 28mm, it's not sharp. It may be as good as the Canon equivalent, I really hope it's better than the 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 Sigma that I own (the MTF looks acceptable at 300mm, whereas my Sigma looks like it's got a digital zoom after about 200mm - to be fair, it was cheap), but you can't make a 10x zoom and claim it's brilliant throughout the range.<br>

<br>

This kind of lens has its place - particularly, its place is on the camera when you might otherwise have missed a shot while changing lenses. I have a plastic 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G lens on my D700 half the time for exactly that reason - it's sort of okay when stopped down a bit, and I'd expect the same of the new zoom. The 28-200 is also a featherweight body cap that I can use until I need to fit big glass - I'm a bit wary of the concept of a superzoom that's heavy enough that you'd think twice about keeping it on the camera, but each to their own. However justifiable the 28-300's existence, I wouldn't go around challenging people with a 28mm f/1.4 or a 300mm f/2.8 VR II to a pixel-splitting (or bokeh) contest. I'll wait until I read a review that starts with realistic assumptions.</p>

[bob_krist]

<p>Guys: You make some legitimate points about Nikon being a client of mine. If any piece of gear I shoot for them on these gigs sucked, I simply wouldn't write about it. I have no vested interest in promoting sucky gear.<br>

So, rest assured, if I write about it, it's because I like the stuff. If I shoot some gear for them that is subpar, the prudent thing to do (and I am nothing if not prudent) is to keep my mouth shut. So far, I haven't had to stuff a sock in it....but if that day comes, you'll never know:-).<br>

I do think it's useful to hear impressions of a <em>working</em> photographer about how the gear might fit into an actual <em>working</em> photographer's gear bag. You want MTF, and all that other stuff, then wait for the reviews from the guys who shoot doorways and church steeples, but who go on and on about their gear demands so they can shoot better pictures of, um, doorways and church steeples. <br>

I make a living selling my pictures to major publications and marketing them through the second largest stock agency on the planet. They have no problem with the tech specs of the gear I use....but if that's not good enough for your criteria, you're wise to find a different source.<br>

And Andrew, for what it's worth, <em>nowhere</em> in my post did I compare this lens to a 85mm f/1.4....in fact, I suggested adding two fast primes so you could get the bokeh and performance that you crave so much.<br>

Here's a condensed version of what I said, so you don't have to read the fine print....<em>this is the best 10+x unizoom I've ever used. It's not an 85mm f/1.4, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 300mm f/2.8. It's a beefy unizoom who's quality is such that I would shoot an assignment with it.</em><br>

I don't mind, and indeed welcome, legitimate criticism. But,please, critique me for what I say, and not what you think I said!<br>

And have a nice weekend! Bob K.</p>

 

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>After a few days of shooting with the 28-300, I'm inclined to agree with Bob. This is a lens performing much better than most people would expect a priori for an 11x zoom lens. Simple as that. Not perfect , but a very useful tool. And it works well in IR too :)</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>my 2c. <br /> there is a dfference between test and real pictures for a job or what ...</p>

<p>i recall Galen Rowell has some v cheap lenses and i as a result had the 80-200/4-5.6 D, one of the handheld shots f/8 at 105mm on the D70, this was back in 2004 I think, the judge said v sharp - my local camera club. galen said f.8 and be there. Galen also used a 28-70/3.5-4.5 I think, other pro's also used a 80-400mm (incl Galen), Moose (?) used the 24-120VR too while some like Thom Hogan said it was okay but not that okay ...</p>

<p>i've started not minding too much about the optics and i don't even know how to read MTF charts :D, I sold my 80-200/2.8D due to focus issues not got a replacement yet, the closest I have is a 18-200VR and the 85/1.8 which I think Bob uses too :D but most the time i just use the 18-200vr.</p>

<p>one image which as a group i won a cup with was the nikon 18-35mm :D One of Galen's setup was F100 + 18-35 with Velvia and his grad filters. i don't know how good the $$ are, but cheap stuff have been prettty good and in terms of judges at clubs, they hasn't been issues, problem has been me, the shot was just not good enof ;-) regardless what equip i could of had. i guess thou, things like bokeh, fine sharpness, flare and stuff like that might be better in $$ lenses but cheap lenses has done the job for me.</p>

<p>i am starting to get some quick lenses that are quite small like the 24/28 f/2.0's.<br /> some of the travel shots i not yet gotten is to capture some motion with street photog, assuming some camera support is required. like a shot he (Bob) had in Paris with the church in the background at night time and the people standing around in front of shops (?). i was coming back from Melbourne and saw a shot similarly at the airport, night time with the iconic railways station (Flinders) with the iconic tram in a corner and the yellow taxi at the other corner as a blur.</p>

[bob_krist]

<p>Bjorn: Glad you're finding the lens to be useful.<br>

And thanks for chiming in, because besides being a great nature shooter, your analyses and lens tests are awesome and thorough. So now, they can hear it from somebody who can shoot AND do technical assessments, instead of somebody like me, who looks at the stuff blown up big and says, yes, that's publishable (or, no, it isn't publishable), and goes on my merry way:-). <br>

And Ray, thanks for those points too. Galen was always using the smallest lightest stuff he could because he knew that it in the formula for photo success, "f/8 and be there," it's the "being there" that is the harder part.</p>

[luis_gonzalez3]

<p>How timely a response, Bjorn. I was JUST on your web site five minutes ago to see if you had tried the 28-300 in IR... Thanks :-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Bob - apologies. I was unfairly sensitive to claims of sharpness, having been sensitised by the various 24-120 reviews (I'm a little concerned that the published MTF of the new one - which is the only way I have of judging it so far - isn't much better, but I'll await proper reports, at least if it improves stopped down) and my experience with a cheap Sigma 28-300, although I'm sure the Nikkor wipes the floor with it. MTF figures certainly don't say how a lens will behave when not wide open, and sharpness is far from the most important factor in an image - or, arguably, a lens's characteristics - anyway; not-perfectly-sharp is often sharp enough, especially with a bit of processing.<br>

<br>

I still dislike unqualified claims of sharpness, in that novices (me, a few years ago - still, if you count actual photographic ability) are prone to buying a superzoom and assume that it'll be perfect no matter how it's used. The MTF suggests that it won't be sharp wide open, in an absolute sense, especially at the wide end. That's not to say that it fails to improve on other superzooms, that it's not useful throughout it's range, or that it's not much sharper stopped down a bit; I just prefer to see any excessively effusive statements qualified a bit.<br>

<br>

That said, I shouldn't have bitten your head off about it; apologies for being dragged into the negative mood in the thread. Your review - or at least blog entry; only this thread actually calls it a review, so I shouldn't criticise your level of detail - is much appreciated and interesting. I also don't object to any of your pictures!<br>

<br>

Given two (now) favourable eminent reviews, I may well look at this lens myself, as an alternative to my 28-200G (my Sigma is Canon-fit, before I switched systems). Even so, I'd be coming to it not expecting miracles.<br>

<br>

Thank you for commenting, and I hope the criticism didn't impinge on <i>your</i> weekend. Not that I recommend that anyone pay attention to me, at the best of times!</p>

[bob_krist]

<p>Andrew: No problem. I don't blame you for being skeptical of anything you read on the net.<br>

I was only concerned because your response seemed to indicate that I had compared the sharpness of this zoom to an 85mm f/1.4, when in fact, I hadn't, and even recommended throwing in a couple of fast primes as logical complements to this impressive uni-zoom. If I were an FX shooter, that's exactly what I'd do, and I'm sorely tempted, let me tell you.<br>

I get reamed a lot for writing my i<em>mpressions</em> of the prototype gear I use instead of <em>analyzing</em> it. The problem is, I'm getting paid to try to make interesting pictures with the gear, and I only ever have it for a day or two, so there is no time (and, truthfully, no desire on my part) to shoot test charts and brick walls! <br>

I'm rethinking the wisdom of these posts and in the future, may just sit back and shut up if I have any experience with newly announced gear and let the test guys do their thing! Shutting up, as my wife points out, would be a novelty for me....</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Bob - I understand your concern. My issue was that people might interpret an unqualified "sharp" as being "as sharp as a professional prime" - I'm not saying you said this, just that a novice might have interpreted it in that way, and that it might be nice (for everyone) to have a context in which to place your claims of sharpness - if only an impression rather than a direct comparison. You're far from alone in using a turn of phrase that might be misconstrued; please don't feel picked on, for all my lack of tact - I rant at the rest of the internet as well. Of course, I'm not loaned lenses by Nikon, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you should call it blurry either!<br>

<br>

As for giving your impressions of the gear, that's entirely my fault for reading the thread title, which called your posting a review, and not judging what you yourself called it. As a blog post and an initial impression, I can't complain that you didn't perform a technical analysis - you never claimed to. You might fend off some careless critics like me if you put a "not a full review" disclaimer on the blog post, but then some people would stop reading and miss out on the useful information you have to impart.<br>

<br>

Please don't feel obliged to stop posting. Just because I'll look for a "proper" test of the lens's sharpness doesn't mean your blog wasn't interesting. At this early stage, I'm sure any information about the new lenses is welcome, however many whingers are out there. Thanks again for your contribution to the photographic blogosphere, and resilience in the face of critics.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>According to the technical tests I have run on the 28-300 today, it is safe to say that set to f/8 or so, its sharpness performance will suffice even on the D3X at all focal settings. OK, there may be slight vignetting, or vestiges of some CA in the extreme corners at the wide end, but otherwise, I've seen prime lenses performing worse. Even more interesting is that the good performance extends to the close-up range as well.</p>

<p>I believe this lens will sell like hotcakes once people understand how good it is, and take the time to understand its quirks.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Bjorn - thank you. See what happens when idiots like me just read the MTF charts? :-) I'm duly humbled, albeit only at f/8.<br>

<br>

I'll make a point of trying one when they're more common. It may still be a bit on the heavy/expensive/slow side for my needs, but knowing that it's decent at least means I'm less dismissive than I might have been.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Nikon publishes what can be considered "worst case" MTF charts. Meaning they always show the performance of the lens wide open, and all photographers know that virtually all lenses improve upon stopping down. Also remember that field curvature etc. influence the MTF charts but may be less important for natural subjects having depth.</p>

<p>Having said the above, my initial expectations for the 28-300 were modest to say the least. Doubts quickly evaporated when I put the lens to real field use, though. Again, it is not perfect, but given you can stop down slightly to f/8 or so, and don't need distortionless geometry of the rendition, it holds its own against renowned prime lenses. For once, a "jack-of-all-trades" that try its best to defy the follow-up "master of none".</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks Bjorn. The good thing to know here is that it <i>is</i> good at f/8. There have been a few notable examples that, at least in the edge of the field, haven't managed this - the old 24-120 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR (1) were in this category, and if anything stood a chance of equal problems it's a 10+x zoom. Nikon are to be congratulated for getting it right this time - perhaps they should follow Leica's convention and start plotting the optimum MTF as well.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bob Krist's blog, and I am very glad that he discloses that Nikon is using his images for the 28-300's introduction. My problem is with the title of this thread; a review should point out the strengths and weaknesses of a product.</p>

<p>I have yet to see the new 28-300 myself, so I am not going to comment on the specifics. However, given the 300mm focal length, if you need to stop it down to f8 to get really good results, that is already a fairly serious limitation. I have both of Nikon's 300mm/f2.8 AF-S and 300mm/f4 AF-S. I typically use the 300mm/f4 @ f4 and would rather not to stop down to f5.6.</p>

<p>Obviously one can't expect too much from a 11x super zoom. If Bob and Bjorn's description is accurate (and I have no reason to believe they are not correct), it is a great achievement from Nikon. I decided not to get the 18-200mm DX earlier, but I might get a 28-300.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Shun: I used a D3X for the final test runs, and to ensure even quality corner to corner *on a flat subject*, f/8 is necessary. Use a lesser camera, or a natural subject with depth, and f/3.5 can be OK. The way one typically uses wide angles lenses in the field, I can hardly see this as a "serious limitation". f/8 is a normal setting for much of landscape-type work anyway.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bjorn, I hope it is clear that I am talking about using any lens @ 300mm, f8. The requirement for 28mm is different. As I said, having only f5.6 at 300mm is problematic to begin with.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Well, there is no free lunch. If you need f/2.8 @ 300 mm, then there is a 2.5-3 kg weight penalty and an additional few thousand $$ to pay. Really that simple. Or accept that a 28-300 cannot be a sports shooter's dream lens. There are occasions, and purses, for both alternatives.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Knowing how much you have to (depending on subject) stop down is good information. My 150-500 Sigma is f/6.3 at the long end - theoretically just over a stop slower than the 500 f/4 VR, for a tiny fraction of the price. However, the 500 f/4 VR is sharp at f/4; the Sigma, at 500mm, isn't sharp(ish) until about f/11. That's a lot of light missed. Not that this is surprising - or that I won't use the Sigma at f/6.3 if I need photons more than sharpness, or that the 28-300 won't be usable in a pinch at f/5.6. It's good that the 28-300 isn't worse, at least. I sometimes think it'd be nice if lenses had a quoted aperture that meets some sharpness (rather than marketability) criteria, and going faster was a "push mode". That'd be a fun way to confuse the market...<br>

<br>

Still, you can't criticise a street-sweeper superzoom for being a bit slow. I already have doubts that it'd be too heavy to keep on the camera, compared with my 28-200. If it was f/4 at the 300mm end, it'd be huge and expensive, and I'd never want to carry one alongside some fast primes (my 28-200 is a body cap for quick snaps until I know what bigger glass I want to attach). I guess everyone has different requirements.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Bjorn,</p>

<p>Any chance that you took a look at the 24-120 F4 too?</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>I did today, in fact, and it looked very promising. However, since this was not a production sample, I'm bound by my NDA and cannot go into further detail, nor can I post pictures taken with it.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Ok, who can we call at Nikon in order for you to get the real thing :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think all four new lenses should be available for sale in a matter of days, although there may be some initial shortage. As people buy them, there will be first-hand experience from actual owners. As far as I know, photo.net will try to get samples from Nikon USA for testing. Personally I am very intersted in the 24-120mm/f4 but am a bit concerned because it is still a 5x zoom. Since apparently Bjorn has not found anything too objectionable, I'll probably just get one. I always find the zoom range on my 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S too limiting on both ends.</p>