New Nikon 28-300mm

B

bigsmiff

Suspended / Banned
Messages
168
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Went out to Goodwood Revival meeting on Friday with the new 28-300mm lens and wondered if anyone was interested in seeing a few shots from this new superzoom.
All taken with a D3
1) taken at 105mm
5011866790_4f666ffedb_z.jpg

2) taken at 78mm
5011270023_c863eb687d_z.jpg

3) taken at 200mm
5011269651_78f3625b4c_z.jpg

4) taken at 300mm
5011871530_169c737d2d_z.jpg

5) taken at 28mm
5011871852_a59165f511_z.jpg
 
Seems fairly sharp and some nice pics... although not on my normal laptop at the moment and display not great but they look fine. Seems like a good walkabout lens, although I am a fan of 2.8 lenses myself.
 
This may make my mind up on buying this over a seperate 18-200 and then a 70-300. I'm stuck in 2 minds on what to do as the total out lay on the 2 options is very similar.

How have you found it so far?
 
SimonBalaam said:
This may make my mind up on buying this over a seperate 18-200 and then a 70-300. I'm stuck in 2 minds on what to do as the total out lay on the 2 options is very similar.

How have you found it so far?
Click to expand...

Only used it for the one day, faster to focus than I thought it might be and very manageable, I am also a fan of 2.8 but didn't fancy lugging tons of kit about all day.
 
bigsmiff said:
I am also a fan of 2.8 but didn't fancy lugging tons of kit about all day.
Click to expand...

Surely the D3 is the wrong camera for you then?

For the cost of the lens alone you could have got a smaller light and cheaper Nikon D60 + 18-200 VR....

I don't "get" someone having a honking body than saying my kit is too heavy so I won't carry it... I guess I missed something..?
 
Perhaps you missed the fact he wasn't asking for kit advice, but merely offering some images from a new lens for review...

I really don't 'get' why people seem so interested in the suitability or otherwise of other peoples kit (when no-one is asking for advice).

Edit: Images look pretty good to me, from what I can tell at 'web size'.
 
Last edited:
puddleduck said:
Surely the D3 is the wrong camera for you then?

For the cost of the lens alone you could have got a smaller light and cheaper Nikon D60 + 18-200 VR....

I don't "get" someone having a honking body than saying my kit is too heavy so I won't carry it... I guess I missed something..?
Click to expand...

I think you have missed something Andy. The weight saving over a 24-70, 70-200 and 300mm against just one lens for a day out is considerable. let alone the faf of changing them in a dusty environment. Just because the OP chooses to put it on his D3 doesn't make him difficult to "get".

Besides he's posted the pictures in order to help any of us that may be considering this lens. Useful to me.
 
They certainly look good and sharp throughout the zoom range. I will also be trying out this lens over the next weekend. I was wondering about the extremities of this lens but your images seem to have dispelled any fears that I had. Looking forward to the weekend now having seen your images.
Mick
 
grotty said:
I really don't 'get' why people seem so interested in the suitability or otherwise of other peoples kit (when no-one is asking for advice).
Click to expand...

Well I assume if someone is posting on a public forum its for discussion purposes.

I must have missed the memo saying otherwise...

I still don't know why someone would buy a D3 - one of the biggest cameras you can buy.. then have a problem with weight, and then look for this sort of lens to solve the problem when a D60 plus 18-200 VR would have sorted that years ago!
 
puddleduck said:
Well I assume if someone is posting on a public forum its for discussion purposes.

I must have missed the memo saying otherwise...

I still don't know why someone would buy a D3 - one of the biggest cameras you can buy.. then have a problem with weight, and then look for this sort of lens to solve the problem when a D60 plus 18-200 VR would have sorted that years ago!
Click to expand...

The classic 'it's a forum so it's up for discussion'...it's not a thread asking which camera body is suitable so it is irrelevant. Besides, why do you even remotely care? Had you considered that on that particular day he wanted just one lens bolted to a body?
 
puddleduck said:
Well I assume if someone is posting on a public forum its for discussion purposes.

I must have missed the memo saying otherwise...

I still don't know why someone would buy a D3 - one of the biggest cameras you can buy.. then have a problem with weight, and then look for this sort of lens to solve the problem when a D60 plus 18-200 VR would have sorted that years ago!
Click to expand...

I think you have totally missed the point. I have a D3 and D3s and have ordered the 28-300. The reason? It enables me to take one lens on certain occasions.

Your D60/18-200 solution wouldn't give me a full frame, high quality, high ISO camera.
 
bigsmiff said:
Went out to Goodwood Revival meeting on Friday with the new 28-300mm lens and wondered if anyone was interested in seeing a few shots from this new superzoom.
All taken with a D3
Click to expand...


Image quality looks absolutely superb.
If I was not already kitted out I'd go for that lens.
 
My 28-300 has just arrived. Stunning. Imagine a larger, heavier 18-200 with better image quality and you are there.

Brilliant.
 
scottthehat said:
this looks great, how does it compare to the 18-200mm for af speed and image quality.
Click to expand...

AF Speed is slightly faster. Image quality; no idea as I haven't had a chance to compare. Travelling to NYC over the weekend so will find out then.
 
Saw a thread on Nikonians forum where someone reckons it vignettes badly when wide open. Any chance of some shots wide open to see ?
 
arclight said:
Image quality looks absolutely superb.
.
Click to expand...

At 640px x 424px, how can you tell?

There's no doubting that a single superzoom is far more convenient than 2 or 3 lenses to cover the same length but I do tend to agree with Puddleduck on whether the lens is a suitable partner for a D3. I used to use a Tamron equivalent as a walk about lens but sold it (to someone who is AFAIK still very happy with it) because I found it too soft, even on film.
 
Nod said:
At 640px x 424px, how can you tell?

There's no doubting that a single superzoom is far more convenient than 2 or 3 lenses to cover the same length but I do tend to agree with Puddleduck on whether the lens is a suitable partner for a D3. I used to use a Tamron equivalent as a walk about lens but sold it (to someone who is AFAIK still very happy with it) because I found it too soft, even on film.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine he can tell because I posted a full res, out of the camera file.

Please tell me why you don't think the lens is suitable for the D3?
 
trevorbray said:
Saw a thread on Nikonians forum where someone reckons it vignettes badly when wide open. Any chance of some shots wide open to see ?
Click to expand...

I just did 2 here at Heathrow and couldn't see any vignetting but I only looked on the camera.

If you look at my Flickr page there are the full res files from all the photos i took yesterday.
 
FF Nikons like good lenses and (whatever KR says) superzooms are a compromise. I'm sure the Nikkor is miles ahead of my old Tamron but I'll stick with my several lenses to cover the range rather than step back to a one lens solution.

Full res, out of the camera? heavily cropped as well, I notice - what are the corners like? What's it like wider open (I would imagine f/6.3 might be close to its optimum aperture)?
 
First off, none of the photos I took with the 28-300 have been cropped so not sure where you get that idea from.

Second, who cares if it is a compromise? It's also a compromise if you have to take multiple lenses as it is a pain in the bum in certain circumstances.

Would it surprise you if i told you a lot of major agency photographers on the red carpet already use the 18-200 in DX mode? Those same photographers will be upgrading to this lens and despite you calling it a compromise, their photos will still be published worldwide.
 
I should add, I am not suggesting people run out and buy a d3, 28-300 and then that's it. I already have f2.8 covered from 14mm to 400mm but the 28-300 gives me a useful and easy option in many circumstances.
 
My carppy merntal arithmetic told me that 4256px x 2832px wasn't the full frame on an Fx body but checking against my D700 pix, it is. Apologies for the false accusation.

Yes, changing lenses can be a pain but IMO, it's worth it for the IQ and/or extra stops.

I really couldn't give a Castlemaine what red carpet photographers are using or are "upgrading" to. They have a market waiting for their pics whatever the results are like and if it's for daily paper use, quality's relatively low after printing anyway, so any deficiencies in the lens used will be hidden anyway.
 
Sorry why do you have a D700 and not a F5? After all, you can get better quality photos from a F5 than you can out of a D700; if IQ is so important why not you use film?

The photographic world is always a compromise.
 
Because film's a PITA and I reckon the D700 has paid for itself in saved D&P costs in the almost 2 years I've had it. Keeping everything in house here, I can't see myself getting the quality I would like out of film, even processing transparencies myself. Besides, I gave all my film stuff away years ago (processing, not cameras - I still have an F65 and an F80 in the cupboard as well as an OM10 and a rangefinder or 2 and compacts.) Have considered an F5 but decided there are better ways to spend the 2 - 5 hundred quid.

Oh, I also use Sigma lenses rather than Nikkors -again down to having better things to spend the extra money on. I would love to upgrade them to the Nikkor equivalents but that's an expense that can wait a while.
 
Is there any 'lens creep' with this lens? My early 18-200mm was dreadful. Hence Nikon putting a lock on the MKII.

Kev.
 
inkiboo said:
I think you have totally missed the point. I have a D3 and D3s and have ordered the 28-300. The reason? It enables me to take one lens on certain occasions.

Your D60/18-200 solution wouldn't give me a full frame, high quality, high ISO camera.
Click to expand...

i like your thinking in good light with a good camera that 28-300 is a great idea as we can see by the clarity of your photos.
with dust and that kicking around it saves your sensor.
the weight reduction means you can enjoy the show and still get great shots.
horses for courses as you say and win,win,win.
please post more photos :cool:
 
Has anyone got any portrait shots taken with this lens, as i would love to see some, particularly head shots, the quality of the photos posted look very good, particularly when you consider the range of the lens :)
 
It was about time Nikon released a lens in this range for the FX range of cameras.
If I was in the market for something covering that range It would certainly be on my short list.
I have owned and used 2 Tamrons covering this focal length and was more than satisfied with the image quality and the end results.
It serves well for a walk about & GP lens.
I currently use a Tamron VC version. :) and have no complaints with the image quality :)
 
kevshore said:
Is there any 'lens creep' with this lens? My early 18-200mm was dreadful. Hence Nikon putting a lock on the MKII.

Kev.
Click to expand...

I have a mk1 18-200 for use as a walk about on the D300. The lens creep doesn't really matter as you would normally have one hand on the lens and one on the camera anyway so no creep. The mk2 has a lock but it only locks the lens closed so not really much help :) Unless of course I have a good example!
 
Mine was a pain when walking with the strap over my shoulder. The lens would gradually extend to full zoom. I know it's quite common and bound to happen with heavy lenses that have a number of elements. But still annoying.
I would certainly consider the 28-300mm for a holiday lens.

Kev.
 
kevshore said:
Mine was a pain when walking with the strap over my shoulder. The lens would gradually extend to full zoom. I know it's quite common and bound to happen with heavy lenses that have a number of elements. But still annoying.
I would certainly consider the 28-300mm for a holiday lens.

Kev.
Click to expand...

Arrr hence the locking closed thing! Mine didn't creep out, still doesn't even though it is now 3.5 years old and well used. Shame I shattered the lens hood yesterday!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top