Feedback on the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR please?

[Vincehutchings]

I am picking up a D600 and a 24-70 f2.8 tomorow D )

Along with the 24-70 I am looking for a tele-zoom. Now I would love to have a sufficient amount of money to just go and purchase the Nikon 70-200 but thinking about it quite alot I cannot justify me getting the use out of it.

I will need a zoom but instead I am considering the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR for half the price.

Does anyone have any feedback on this lens and/or provide suggestions for any further alternatives (range wise or 3rd makes)

Thank you
Vince

 

[Ivan S]

I would have probably gone with something like the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR IF-ED as you all ready cover the same focal length all ready with the 24-70, I suppose it depends on your usage with it though and whether the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is worth it for the extra light it can let in, it is £500 extra, is it worth it to you?

 

[Vincehutchings]

The few times I may really need the f2.8 capabilities are gig shooting (low light) so the few stops of the 28-300 3.5 was better (ok, i know minimal!) than the f4.5 of the 70-300....

hhmmmmm

 

[Ivan S]

Well you are only going to get the extra light at the lower end of the focal range, 28mm will allow the 3.5 but then your 24-70 would be a better choice for lower light at the lower end of the focal range anyway, and at 300mm both will be 5.6, hmmm, I am fairly new to this so it's all I can offer, I am sure there must be more benefits to the more expensive lens though.

 

[TonyNI]

I'm sure you won't go wrong with the 70-300VR. I have owned the tamron 70-300VC and it was superb. I wouldn't overlap your current range with the likes of a 28-300.

Also consider the likes of a sigma 70-200OS. It is my current tele and main portrait lens and I couldn't say a bad thing about it. Can be imported grey market for about £730 or had second hand for £600-650