peter_howard2 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 <p>Hi, At present I have a D300s with a 18-200mm VR and 70-300 VR lens. I am thinking about exchanging them for the new 28-300 VR lens. I understand the FX lens would not function fully due to the crop factor on my DX camera, but could anyone tell me whether they have actually tried this combination and if so what the results were. Many thanks, Peter</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_yves_mead Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Crop factor alone would have no effect on how the lens functions, only on the field of view attainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryAmmerman Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 <p>The crop factor only changes how much of the image circle cast by the lens is recorded. The lens still functions the same regardless of the camera format. I've not used the 28-300, but based on using my 28-105, I can tell you that 28mm is not very wide on DX and can be very restrictive for indoor use when there's often not much room to back up. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannes_vos Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 <p>The lens will work perfectly on your camera, but it was designed for full frame bodies.<br /> Its the other way around - dx lenses on fx bodies, where the problem is because you will use a smaller section of the larger sensor, and thus lose pixels. I.e. you get about 5-6MP instead on the normal 12MP. Remember, like Jean said, the field of view of the 28-300mm on FX is equivalent to 18-200 on the DX body. Put the 28-300 on a DX body and you get a field of view of about 42-450mm. Good for long shots, but you lose the wide end. PS the 70-300mm VR is a very good lens, no need to change... Get a good fast prime lens maybe to complement the other two. E.g. the 35mm made for dx.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydesi Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 <p>The points above, about losing 10mm on the wide end could be significant, but if you personally don't shoot at the wide end very often, it may not have an impact. Take a look through your photos and see how often you've shot wider than 28mm. If minimally or never, you won't miss many photos. If a substantial number of your shots are in the 18-27mm range, then you may want to reconsider.</p> <p>That said, why are you looking to trade lenses? Do you often find yourself inconvenienced having to switch between lenses to use the 70-300 when you need more reach? With so much overlap between your two current lenses, perhaps you'd be better off trading the 18-200 for something in the 18-55 range, or something similar and use it to complement your 70-300. As a Canon guy, I don't know much about the Nikon lens lineup, but Canon has a 15-85 that would seem to complement your 70-300 perfectly, if such a lens is available from Nikon.</p> <p>I understand it can be a pain sometimes to switch lenses, but that's really one of the biggest advantages of a DSLR...rather than fighting it, try to embrace it! I have no experience with superzooms, but considering the beating they take on this forum, I don't think I'd purchase one. That said, you already have one in the 18-200, so if it hasn't let you down in terms of image quality, then don't let that hold you. back.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_howard2 Posted April 3, 2011 Author Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Thank you very much Guys for your very helpful information and comments. The reason I am considering this option is due to me going to Australia later this year and I have a serious luggage weight problem and hence trying to restrict the equipment I am taking. All your details are valid and will give me greater insight into my ultimate decision. Many thanks once again.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>If the luggage weight is the problem... the 28-300 is quite a bit larger too. So, it maybe not be the miracle cure. If you have to compromise, loosing 100mm at the long end will be less of a miss than 10mm on the short. To test, just set your 18-200 to 28mm and see what you'll miss.<br> Or consider the new Tamron 18-270 (reviewed here on p.net) which seems rather OK and small too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Jay Maisel http://www.jaymaisel.com loves the 28-300mm on his D3s cameras. He, and I, think it is a great lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Sample image from the Albuquerque Balloon Fest last October, D3s at ISO 12,800</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>full res detail. 28mm, 1/320 @ f/4.5</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>deleted duplicate</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>One more, this one of John Rettie, 28-300mm f/3.5 -5.6G AF-S Nikkor on a Nikon D3X. 300mm @ ISO 640, f/5.6 @ 1/80.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Detail of John Rettie portrait</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 <p>Another detail cropped from the same photo. Any 300mm lens at f/5.6 at really close distance (about 8 feet in this case) is going to have really shallow depth of field.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_howard2 Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 <p>Wouter and Ellis, Thanks for your input. Wouter, the issue I have is really trying to only take one lens. Whilst the 28-300 maybe heavier as an item, it would prove lighter than the two other lenses put together. Ellis, thank you for your fantastic photos. It has reassured me that super results are achievable with this combination. The issue I now need resolve is how much I would miss the 18-27mm range if I go for this new option. Decisions, decisions! My grateful thanks to you all. Kind regards, Peter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now