Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S NIKKOR VR

[mark4583]

Has anyone used this lens? Whats your thoughts on it? Thanks

[Manfred M]

I'm looking at buying it right now. The main reason for me to go for this lens is for travel photography as it would reduce the number of lenses I would have to carry. I normally take three lenses with me (f/2.8 24-70mm and f/2.8 70-200,,) plus one more. With this single lens, I would cut down to one.

The main reason is that we will be heading out with backpacks for a month in South America and will be traveling from tropical to cold, high altitude parts of the continent; Brazil and Bolivia. Space and weight are the main consideration. We will be traveling with a 50 litre and 45 litre backpack so we can't take all that much along.

When I did a somewhat similar trip four years ago, I picked up a Panasonic mFT camera but was never satisfied with some of the constraints mirrorless cameras have (slow focus when compared to a DSLR, limited controls on the camera body (which meant I had to take my eye off the viewfinder to make common adjustments) and small sensor size (limited DoF and limits on the size of prints I can make at an acceptable noise level). The D810 will go and I am still figuring out which tripod to take.

Nikon Canada has the lens on sale for $CAD 1000 and that sale ends on Jan 10, so I don't have a lot of time to make my decisions.

The other factor is that my wife has been shooting with the 18 - 200mm lens on her DX camera (D7500), so we will have a similar focal range (the 28 - 300mm is a lot larger and heavier and more distortion, but I can live with that).

I'll get back to you with first impressions if I do go ahead and get it. If I don't same thing as to why I ended up not buying it.

[rpcrowe]

I just noticed that B&H has the lens refurbished for $775 USD. I don't know how much that would be in Canadian dollars or if Canada would charge duty...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._3_5_5_6G.html

Do you think it might be appropriate to carry at least one additional faster aperture lens on the trip?

[Manfred M]

At current exchange rates $US 775 is $CAD $1060, so a used lens is more expensive than a brand new one. One of the camera stores I deal with has a used one for sale for $CAD 900.

If I go this route, I will only take the one lens. Right now the decisions boils down to either buying a new lens or taking both the f/2.8 24-70mm and the old f/4.5 - f/5.6 80-400mm. I did that when I went to Ethiopia and that worked out fairly well for general shooting as well as a bit of wildlife photography. As we will be staying in the Pantanal, in Brazil, there will likely be some opportunities there.

[shreds]

Manfred,

If you are both using Nikon cameras, would there be any logic in spreading the range of lenses between you rather than having duplication?

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

If you are both using Nikon cameras, would there be any logic in spreading the range of lenses between you rather than having duplication?

My wife shoots a crop frame camera and virtually never shoots anything other than her 18-200mm lens. She owns a Sigma 150-500mm (which is a full-frame lens) that she will pull out if we get into a situation where she is going to do some wildlife photography, an activity that seems to be related to going to Africa... We just replaced her rather ancient D90 with a D7500. Her main criteria were light weight and something that feels comfortable in her relatively small hands.

I shoot full frame and because I do a lot of large format printing, I cannot see ever going back to crop frame. My wife finds the full frame far too large for her hands. I generally shoot only four lenses - the Nikkor f/2.8 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm as well as the Nikkor f/3.5 24mm PC-E. I occasionally shoot some of my other lenses...

If I could afford it, I would be shooting medium format... Effectively there is little overlap in our shooting needs, so there is really no opportunity to share lenses.

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:

Season's greetings to you and a Happy 2019.

When i jumped ship and got a Nikon Df body, I bought the 28-300 lens as a one-off purchase after agonizing over reviews from multiple sources, and I must say that it has delivered excellent results for me. I accept that any lens with such a wide focal range is going to challenged, but honestly between in-camera correction and the ones built into LR and PS it produced amazing good photos.

For me this is a brilliant all-in-one lens: I have the Canon 28-300L lens, which is also a brilliant lens, but it is both massive and MUCH heavier, being made of metal. I shall be using the Nikon lens on the Df as my only camera when I do a five-day hike in February.

[pnodrog]

I use it most of the time on a D800. I always do a lens and chromatic aberration corrections in LR. Unless you are going to print larger than A3 most people would be hard pressed to tell it from most other lenses. I like photography not pixel peeping.

P.S. Just about everything I have posted here in thee last four years has been taken with it, including a highly cropped image that was placed third in last months monthly competition.

[Manfred M]

Update: I ended up buying the lens today.

Basically it is more or less what I expected; the layout and functionality is similar to the 18-200mm DX lens, but in a physically larger package. It's about the same size and weight as my Nikkor f/2.8 24-70mm lens when set at a 24mm focal length. It is not an internally focusing lens, so it gets a lot longer when zoomed out to 300mm.

I've done a couple of test shots and the distortion is noticeable if I do not use the lens profiles in the raw convertor, but not bad when that is applied. I'm not going to be shooting a lot of shallow DoF shots with this lens; it's not all that fast and will be pushing the ISO a bit harder than I tend to.

My camera bag will be a lot lighter on this trip... I'll be testing it this weekend...

[Arjung]

Congratulations Manfred on your new lens.

This was my 1st lens I bought in 2011 when I upgraded to a FF. What drew me to it was carrying one lens. That was my sole criteria then. I shot a reasonable amount of wildlife with this lens - maybe at least 25,000-35000 images. I have since upgraded to the 80-400 for my wildlife and have a 35mm 1.8 for low light photography.

If I had to tabulate the use of my camera today between my 3 lenses in terms of photos shot & kept, the 80-400 would be around 50%; the 28-300 40% and the 35mm 10%. If I had to tabulate my trips where I carry my DSLR, my 28-300mm lens is closer to 75% (my 35mm now goes with both).

Given it's range its extremely versatile. It may have its flaws; the question is do you want one lens or more....? You know my answer

[Manfred M]

I stuck the camera out the back door and took a couple of quick shots using a tripod. In these postings I just wanted to demonstrate the significant amount of distortion that the lens has. If one shoots JPEG or uses lens profile corrections in the raw convertor (assuming that this functionality is available), the problem goes away.

I tested these shots at the widest setting of a 28mm focal length. Open the shots in Lightbox and use the back and forward arrows to cycle through these two images. There is significant barrel distortion in the lens.


1. Uncorrected image





2. Corrected image

[Manfred M]

This is a similar test as the first, except I used the longest focal length of 300mm

Here there is a lot of pincushion distortion in the uncorrected version. The corrected version fixes this flaw quite nicely. Again I suggest opening one of the images in Lightbox by double clicking on the image and then using the forward and back arrows to compare the two shots.


1. Uncorrected image





2. Corrected image




The corrections for both sets of images were done with Adobe Camera Raw. Lightroom would give identical results.

[Manfred M]

Congratulations Manfred on your new lens.

This was my 1st lens I bought in 2011 when I upgraded to a FF. What drew me to it was carrying one lens. That was my sole criteria then. I shot a reasonable amount of wildlife with this lens - maybe at least 25,000-35000 images. I have since upgraded to the 80-400 for my wildlife and have a 35mm 1.8 for low light photography.

If I had to tabulate the use of my camera today between my 3 lenses in terms of photos shot & kept, the 80-400 would be around 50%; the 28-300 40% and the 35mm 10%. If I had to tabulate my trips where I carry my DSLR, my 28-300mm lens is closer to 75% (my 35mm now goes with both).

Given it's range its extremely versatile. It may have its flaws; the question is do you want one lens or more....? You know my answer

I probably shoot the 24-70mm and 70-200mm 95% of the time, so the focal length is really what I was looking for. I normally carry 3 or even 4 lenses on a trip, but as we will be traveling with backpacks (50 litre capacity), I'm going to have to leave some things at home just because of space constraints.

That is the problem when traveling to a location where we will be in a tropical environment for about half the time and then into a cold, high altitude location for the other half. We need clothing that is fine from 0° C up to 40°. My real concern is when we are going to be at altitude; the extra weight will be challenging based on my previous experience in the Andes and Himalaya mountains.

I plan to do a lot of shooting with it over the next month in order to get to know the lens well.

[george013]

The reviews are not that positive about this lens.
https://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/5...orafs28300vrff


George

[Manfred M]

The reviews are not that positive about this lens.
https://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/5...orafs28300vrff


George

I understand that fully George. If I were planning to shoot in a lab-like setting using my large, heavy-duty tripod that was weighted down with sandbags, like I sometimes do, I would definitely pay attention.

As I will be hand holding close to 100% of the time when I use this lens while on the trip I bought it for, I know that the lens test results are meaningless as minor amounts of camera movement, small focusing errors, etc. will be the norm on the trip. The lens distortion and relative slowness of the lens (f/3.5 - f/5.6) are bigger concerns, but I can live with these given the amount of space I can save. Being restricted to a 50 litre backpack and photographing at high altitude (3700m / 12000ft) are my main concerns.

I had two choices, in my mind. I could have bought this lens or I could have taken my small Panasonic mFT camera along (or even replaced it with a newer mFT camera body for about the same money I spent on this lens). Given the weaknesses of mirrorless cameras (auto focus speed when shooting action and poor battery life), this is not a good alternative.

[proseak]

Here's a review -

https://www.imaging-resource.com/len...nikkor/review/

[george013]

It's a matter of making choices.
But looking to the reviews the 18-200 on a DX preforms better as the 28-300 on a FF.

George

[pnodrog]

It's a matter of making choices.
But looking to the reviews the 18-200 on a DX preforms better as the 28-300 on a FF.

George

Have you ever used the Nikon 28-300mm lens? Have you read Ken Rockwells review? What is your point?

Manfred has made a very logical choice based on the requirements he has and I am reasonably confident based on years of using the lens that he will happy with the results he gets. When travelling it has the great advantage of being able to take a wide angle shot of a scene and then zoom in on some interesting detail without wasting time changing the lens and risking getting dirt on the sensor.

Very few photographs viewed or printed on media less than A3 are a failure due to optics. Subject mater, composition, exposure, colour balance, camera shake and poor focus (not optics) would account for the problems in just about all the poor photographs we see.

[george013]

Have you ever used the Nikon 28-300mm lens? Have you read Ken Rockwells review? What is your point?

Manfred has made a very logical choice based on the requirements he has and I am reasonably confident based on years of using the lens that he will happy with the results he gets. When travelling it has the great advantage of being able to take a wide angle shot of a scene and then zoom in on some interesting detail without wasting time changing the lens and risking getting dirt on the sensor.

Very few photographs viewed or printed on media less than A3 are a failure due to optics. Subject mater, composition, exposure, colour balance, camera shake and poor focus (not optics) would account for the problems in just about all the poor photographs we see.

No problem for me. As I said it's a matter of choice. But when his wife is traveling with him with a 18-200 on a crop camera they have exactly the same range.

George

[Manfred M]

It's a matter of making choices.
But looking to the reviews the 18-200 on a DX preforms better as the 28-300 on a FF.

George

That is not surprising George. Designing a lens that covers a full frame image circle at the same focal apertures is going to require more challenging trade-offs than doing so with a crop-frame sensor. The lens reviews suggest one of the main issues with the lens are complex distortion. Luckily for me, those distortions can be measured and corrected by either the camera (when shooting image files) or by the raw convertor.

I am not planning to shoot in a lab environment and I am possibly not even going to take a tripod along on this trip, so the main advantage of taking a higher quality lens will be negated by that factor that I will be hand-holding. I will be posting mages taken with the sharpest lenses I own and will be comparing it at comparable focal lengths to see how the images compare.