The Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S Nikkor zoom lens was announced a couple months ago and began shipping in early September. I preordered when the lens was first announced and got my copy about a week ago. On receipt I did a quick test against other lenses. Since then, I’ve been using the lens to make images for publication. Overall, I like this lens; it fills a place in my kit that has been empty since I upgraded from DX to FX a couple years ago. I noticed there aren’t really very many first-hand use reports on this new zoom yet, so here are some impressions.
 |
I got mine from B&H Photo-Video. Other good sources are Adorama or Amazon.
(It really helps me out if you buy from one of those links. Hey, it costs the same either way, so why not?)
In a nutshell: This is a great “do-everything” tool for FX photographers (that is, Nikon shooters who use D700 or one of the D3 series — a body with a full-frame sensor). For me, it is a very credible FX equivalent of the much-lauded but DX-specific AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II. I’ve been missing that huge zoom range and performance since I upgraded to FX. Now I have it again.
Before I go into more detail, let me say this: I am not a professional equipment reviewer. I will leave the detailed technical analysis (and “professional-versus-amateur” pontificating) to others. Every photographer needs to choose the right tool for their own personal style and needs. I am a working professional who shoots primarily destination and travel photographs while on the move. I shoot a lot in foreign destinations and on a budget, where I need to travel light and don’t want to make myself a lucrative target, festooned with lots of camera gear. I also don’t have the weight allowance, enough hands, or the desire to carry extra camera bodies or swap lenses for each and every shot (that is, if I can possibly avoid it). When traveling, I am usually out exploring and must carry all my gear for the whole day, “sun-up to sundown” (along with water, map, guidebook, jacket, etc., etc., and etc.). In the field I often carry a few lenses to cover the situations I expect through a whole day of touring, but I normally have one “walking around” lens on my camera when I go exploring. This new 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S lens is shaping up to be my go-to travel and “walking around” lens.
Using the Lens: In the hand and attached to my D700, this new lens feels solid and professional. There is no light-weight “give” in the zoom or focus rings: Everything is firm and solid. Extended to full 300mm focal length, the lens just about doubles in length. The lens focuses internally, so the front does not ever turn (so you don’t have to worry about attached filters like circular polarizers and the like). At this stage (still new), the zoom ring turns with pleasant stiffness; So far I haven’t needed to use the zoom stop/lock to prevent the lens from extending when I’m walking around. (That said, it is nice to be able to lock the lens at its shortest, 28mm, length; I am trying to develop a habit of using the zoom lock.) The lens isn’t light; it is nearly twice the heft of the old stock 28-200mm or 24-85mm zooms — but it is nowhere near as beefy as a lot of Nikon’s “professional” series lenses. (For instance, the classic 70-200mm VR zoom is larger and heavier.) Attached to my D700, the whole thing balances well in the hand. The body with lens attached feels agile and I find I can easily use it all day without stress, strain, or fatigue.
Performance / Results: My copy of this lens produces images that are contrasty and sharp to the eye at just about every focal length; Overall image quality is quite good across the entire zoom range. There is very little light fall-off from center to edges at all focal lengths. My copy turns out clear, consistent results with very little effort and no more than my usual semi-automatic adjustments and tweaks in photo management software. I have not noticed much flare (though of course there is some, especially when shooting with the lens pointed upwards and toward the sun). I haven’t yet calibrated for a lens profile, but at first blush it looks to me like any correction needed will be easily managed in Adobe. I would be comfortable submitting its results for publication at almost all focal lengths — in fact, it is better than other lenses I have used in the past for images that have recently ended up on mass-market magazine covers. Based on my testing and experience to date, I expect this lens will become a favorite.
When I first got the lens I did a quick, technically amateur but basically real-world(~ish) experiential test to see how my copy fares. It was worth testing for myself: Lots of experts have looked at the MTF curves and expressed concern over sharpness, especially at the wide end. I’m happy to report the predictions of poor performance seem to me to have been exaggerated.
The Test: I put my Nikon D700 body on a tripod on my own back porch, where I have a view of the lake and can make sure there is something at practical “infinity” in at least one corner at all zoom lengths. It was a bright, sunny day. The focus point was fixed at a point near the waterline on the opposite side of the lake (at or near “infinity”). I set the camera at aperture priority and then shot raw through every lens I own at a range of f-stops. The resulting images were not processed or optimized: Using the camera raw, I cropped at 100% and then put some samples together for comparison. I think I mentioned already — this lens did great. 
Here’s the original scene, shot through a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 prime, stopped down to F/16. (This one has been mildly processed for appearance; It is not part of the comparison test.)
Just for grins, here is the same scene, shot at 28mm and f/16 through the new Nikkor 28-300mm zoom (with VR on). (This one is cleaned up just like the one above using “clone settings” in Lightroom; since it’s been ‘cleaned up,’ this also isn’t part of the test.)
Test Results:
Overall, this new lens performed better than expected. There is noticeable softness at the edges when the lens is wide open; that is to be expected. My copy sharpens up nicely and can compete with most other midrange zooms once it is stopped down a click or two at all focal lengths. In general, my copy of the new lens is sharper and cleaner than the classic consumer stock 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S zoom; the old standby 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G; or the current, professional 70-200mm ED VR AF-S. With Nikon’s excellent VR-II vibration reduction built-in, I am finding that there are very few circumstances when I have to shoot wide open — and in those cases, usually the subject is dark and the softness at the edges is just not significant.
At Wide Angle — Here are some test images from this new 28-300mm at its widest (28mm) — compared against the well-known, beloved Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom. Right now, I don’t own another 28mm lens, but the 24-70mm is pretty darned good as a starting point. As you can see, this new 28-300mm is pretty close, even when it is wide-open but the 24-70 is stopped down a bit. Just for the heck of it, I’ll also include a comparison crop from the 20mm prime f/2.8 stopped down to equivalent f-stops and cropped to show the same section of the photo (note that since this isn’t at the edge of the 20mm field of view, it is actually in a sharper area for the prime than for the zooms). The prime is clearly a bit sharper, but you have to admit the zooms aren’t too bad even in this unfair fight. (This is the lower-left corner of the 28mm image, cropped at full size/resolution. In the first two series, the new 28-300 is on the left; the last series is from the 20mm prime.)
 Comparison wide-open: 28-300mm zoom and 24-70mm zoom - lower left corner, 28mm @ f/3.5 |
 Comparison stopped-down: 28-300mm and 24-70mm zooms - 28mm @ f/16 |
 Just for reference: The same section of an image from the 20mm prime lens |
At mid-range (let’s say 50mm and 70mm): The new 20-300mm zoom does great in the mid-range. I’d be quite comfortable with this lens in the mid-range for professional photo publication placements. It is to be expected that any lens with this zoom range would be a little soft at its widest, but sharpness is a little more important at 50mm or 70mm, where most casual users do most of their shooting. Here are some comparison strips at 50mm and at 70mm, wide-open and stopped down. Just to make it challenging, here we will compare against three lenses. For the 50mm test I’ve added the 50mm f/1.4 prime. At 70mm we’ll add in the venerable 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom at 70mm. I expect the 50mm prime to be a bit sharper (and it is), but I was surprised to see that the new 28-300mm on the whole holds its own quite well — better than I expected, especially when stopped down one or two f-stops. The real surprise here is that the 28-300mm is to my eye sharper and more contrasty than the pro-standard 70-200mm zoom at every aperture.
At 50mm (including the 50mm f/1.4 prime, stopped down). We’ve moved to the shadows in the lower right for these shots — check for sharpness in the dock edges and the reflections in the water. (And since I’m inconsistent, look for the new 28-300 to be on the right in these shots.)
 Nikon 28-300 zoom compared against 24-70 zoom and 50mm prime - 50mm @ f/3.5 |
 Nikon 28-300 zoom compared against 24-70 zoom and 50mm prime - 50mm @ f/16 |
At 70mm (now including the venerable 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom reference standard, stopped down to match apertures). We’re still in the shadows in the lower right for these shots — check for sharpness in the dock edges and the reflections in the water. (And the new 28-300 is still on the right.)
 Nikon 28-300 compared against 24-70 and 70-200 zooms - 70mm @ f/5 |
 Nikon 28-300 compared against 24-70 and 70-200 zooms - 70mm @ f/16 |
Telephoto Lengths (say, 100-300mm): The new 28-300mm zoom is crisp and sharp at telephoto lengths. At the longer focal lengths, the new 28-300mm zoom is equal to Nikon’s other zoom lenses. When we get to 200mm, in general I found my copy to be more contrasty and a little sharper than any of my other Nikon zoom lenses. My copy of the new lens is sharper and cleaner than the old (but still often recommended) 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G or the current, professional 70-200mm ED VR AF-S. It even beat the 105mm f/2.8 micro-nikkor prime at 105mm. I do not possess the longer Nikon lenses, so I’m afraid we’ll have to await other reviews for a rack-and-stack against the bigger lenses. Here is a sample comparison to the 70-200mm and 28-200 zooms at 200mm, just to illustrate:
At 300mm, the lens is clear and sharp. I don’t have another lens that is this long on an FX sensor, but here is a full-frame photo sample from the new 28-300 zoom at 300mm (ISO 200, f/11 at 1/50 sec.). This is not a crop; it’s the whole image. (By the way, this is not a picture of a rower. The shore line is the focus point for all the test shots; this guy joined the shoot in progress, so he is actually over 25 feet in front of the focus point. But he adds interest to the shot, so what the heck.) You can see the lens’ true focus behind the rower, along the shore wall and tree line.
Finally, just in case you’re counting, here are a few tech specs (courtesy of Nikon USA):
Weight: (Approx.)28.2 oz. (800g)
Supplied Accessories: Lens Hood; Snap-on Front Lens Cap; Rear Lens Cap; and Soft Case
If you like this review and decide to buy the lens, please consider buying through one of these links:
I got my copy from B&H Photo-Video. Other good sources are Adorama or Amazon.
(It really helps me out if you buy from one of those links. Hey, buying the new lens will cost the same either way, so why not? Thank You!)
 |
| Creative Commons License: All content copyright © Rick Collier and thePhotoTourist. Watermarked images may be shared without modification; with attribution and link-back; and for personal use only (not for profit or commercial use). All commercial rights reserved. See "About" for use terms. |
Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!
Too bad you used f16 as the “stopped down” aperture. All lenses are diffraction limited at that aperture and produce much worse results than they do in mid apertures.
Thanks for the comment, David. I did not consider that point. Still, I think (hope) the crops are useful for the comparison between lenses as intended. I’ll try to update the review with some mid-range f-stop series.
However. Since we’re talking scientific technicalities. Diffraction is only an issue when the lens is attached to a camera body and anyway, pretty much by definition the physics of the recording medium (camera body and sensor) also affects diffraction limit. Talking digital cameras, an FX (full-frame) camera like the D700 should (in theory) produce a higher (more forgiving) diffraction limit than a DX system. (All else being equal, in theory a larger sensor means larger pixels and therefore smaller aperture required to incur those limiting effects.) Since the camera/lens system’s point of greatest sharpness/clarity is right before diffraction comes into play, it could be that f/16 may be right about at the “sweet spot” for an FX camera. Or maybe f/16 is actually just past that point and these images are indeed diffraction limited. The answer probably varies, depending on the lens. I don’t know how to test “diffraction limit” and don’t want to do the math anyway, so it’s all theory to me.
As a practical matter, even when a camera-lens set has reached its theoretical diffraction limit, other factors are probably bigger concerns — The image is more likely to be noticeably affected by focus accuracy, motion blur, lens imperfections, or even surface haze (since these tests were shot over a lake on a warm day). Since the other factors were mostly pretty much the same throughout this shoot, odds are good any variations in these shots will come down to either the lens or testing (operator) error.
So anyway. I’ll try to put up more test strips at a mid-range f-stop, just in case its helpful.
Hi!
Was exited to see some comparison images with the new lens, but the images here are too small to tell. Any cam/lens combination can make good images at that size. Care to share some larger images (100% crops)? Also, when comparing lenses – take care to get images with the same contrast in the scene (ref. the tree shots above). If the sun moves too much between takes, the light and shadow conditions of the scene will be too different to be comparable.
Thanks for the review!
Rick
Nice review!
I saw your comment on Nasim’s page.
I have this lens for about a week, and am having a lot of fun – it definitely is a lot better than I imagined.
Although I haven’t had time to make a detailed appraisal (I’m waiting for Nasim’s tech report), 1st impression are posted on my blog: http://www.pasquierphoto.blogspot.com.
We certainly are being blessed by incredible photographic equipment at the moment.
Take care and enjoy your travels, P:)
How do you feel about using this 28-300mm lens with a DX camera?
Hi Glen. The 28-300 should work just fine on a DX camera, but you should be aware you are giving up the wide end of the lens due to the 1.5x crop factor on a DX camera. On DX, this lens would give an effective 42-450mm focal length range. So, on DX this lens gives you a normal range to long telephoto rather than the wide to telephoto one might expect. You basically lose the whole wide end. If your desire is actually to go longer, you might be better off looking at one of Nikon’s longer telephotos (say, the 70-200 or 70-300 zooms). If you want one lens to “do everything” from wide to telephoto on DX, you need to keep the 1.5x DX crop factor in mind; you would probably be better served getting a lens made for DX.
If it were me, if I wanted the same effective wide-to-telephoto range on DX I would get the excellent Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens. That lens is made for DX and with the crop factor for DX delivers the same effective focal range on DX as the 28-300 does on FX. The DX-specific 18-200 is also extremely well reviewed. I had one, but sold it when I moved “up” to FX. For me, this new 28-300 is a replacement in FX for the 18-200 that I’ve missed since I left DX. Seriously — Unless you really want the extended telephoto (and don’t want the wide end) or you are planning to move up to FX sometime soon, save yourself a few bucks and get the 18-200 that’s made for DX. It is made for the purpose and your body, it is less expensive, and the quality is every bit as good. Take a look at it, at least. If you agree, here are some sources for the 18-200: B&H Photo Video; Adorama; and Amazon.com.
Good luck! Whatever you get, I’ll bet you’ll enjoy it!
Thanks for the only real review I’ve seen on this lens so far. As mentioned, the examples were a little small for an easy comparison so if you could make some bigger ones, that would be great!
Thanks! I will try to correct the small images … umm, soon! Cheers.
Great review. real world test, and not lab tested graphs.
I think there are many factors in a picture that are not in the lab test and are in your review.
For example, when you take a picture you have to choose a focal point plane and the proper f stops. I saw this things in your pictures and realized I can (and don’t need) to use a lens max sharpness at every part of the picture.
some places will need only 90% since they are not the focal plane. For the focal plane, 95% of the best prime is incredibly good.
So I’ll get this lens and work on perfection in other photography factors…
Thanks.
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the great review. I’ve been wanting the 24-120 for some time and am just about ready to get one but now I’m seriously contemplating getting this lens.
With the money saved, I can get the 105 macro too!
Several other reviews say it’s an awesome lens, it looks like Nikon has a winner. Awesome!
I have a D80 and was considering the new Nikkor 28-300mm for the additional zoom capabilities, but saw your comments am now considering the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II. But my question is will it still provide the full zoom as the 28-300 when I’m using it with the D80?
Hi Anne. I would definitely look at the 18-200 DX for your D80. With the 1.5x crop factor on the smaller (DX) sensor in the D80, the zoom factor should be exactly the same. With the DX crop factor you have to multiply by about 1.5 to figure the “equivalent” focal length. So, the 24-300 will be a little bit longer and will not go as wide when you put it on your D80. You’ll gain more telephoto, but lose the wide end. The 28-300 on your D80 will actually work like a 36-450. If you’re looking for equivalent focal coverage of 24-300mm from film days on a DX camera like your D80, get the 18-200 DX lens. I had the 18-200 DX when I was shooting D70 and then the D200, and I loved it. I’d review it now if I still had it, but I sold mine when I moved “up” to the D700. (The DX crop factor of the 18-200 on my FX camera works, but causes the camera to “step down” to a lower resolution. And OBTW, I moved to the FX-format D700 purely for my own satisfaction because I like to shoot in low light. In fact almost all of my post popular images even today — including most of the images I have sold — were shot with a DX-format camera. There is no really pressing need to move to a full-frame FX sensor at premium price if you are happy with the performance of your D80.) My advice: Get the 18-200 DX and don’t look back — that is, unless you really plan to upgrade to an FX camera in the near future.
By the way, if you decide to get the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens for your D80, here are some good sources: B&H Photo Video; Adorama; and Amazon.com.
Great review. real world test, and not lab tested graphs.
I think there are many factors in a picture that are not in the lab test and are in your review.
For example, when you take a picture you have to choose a focal point plane and the proper f stops. I saw this things in your pictures and realized I can’t (and don’t need) to use a lens max sharpness at every part of the picture.
some places will need only 90% since they are not the focal plane. For the focal plane, 95% of the best prime is incredibly good.
So I’ll get this lens and work on perfection in other photography factors…
Thanks.
Thanks Ishay! I hope you love the lens as much as I do. Let us know what you find when you have a chance to use your own copy!
Many thanks for the detailed comments. Yes, I’m used to Nikon film cameras and lens’ and am adjusting to the requirements of the digital backs. As a follow-up question, I have 24-50 Nikkor lens from the film camera days — which I really like. But if I’m looking for wider angle coverage, what lens should I be thinking of e.g. Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX or??
Anne, your old 24-50mm Nikkor is probably a fabulous lens. I have an old Nikon film set, complete with several lenses that I’ve just not been able to bring myself to sell. Nikon has not made very many lemons. (If you go back to the history of the company, Nikon started as a lens maker; the first cameras bearing either Canon or Nikon parts were bodies made by Canon with lenses made by Nikon.) As you’ve discovered, the old Nikkor lens will work fine on your new digital Nikon (but probably only manual focus, depending on how old the lens may be). The same 1.5x crop factor rules will apply to that older lens, though; a 24-50mm made for film will give you equivalent 36-75mm on your new DX body. I haven’t used one myself, but understand the Nikkor 10-24 AF-S DX is a good lens, but maybe a little soft in the corners wide-open. Frankly, if you’re shooting wide, you probably aren’t paying lots of attention to the extreme corners anyway — so a little softness there probably isn’t much of an issue. On a DX camera like your D80 it should give zoom range equivalent to a 15-36mm on your old film camera.
If you like to work wide and are looking for an excellent ultra-wide to wide zoom, you should also consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X. That Tokina has been called “the best ultrawide zoom available for Nikon DX cameras.” I had one and LOVED it; it was tack-sharp at all aperatures and all focal lengths, and with that fast f/2.8 throughout the zoom range coupled with the very forgiving wide-angle focal length it could be hand-held for available light shooting indoors even in a dimly lit room. (My copy was among the lenses I sold in the “upgrade” to FX, when I no longer had good use for DX-specific lenses.) The Tokina is made for DX cameras and at 11-16mm, it gives equivalent 16.5mm to 24mm on a film camera. If you already have a good “normal” prime or mid-range zoom, the 24mm-to-wider range of the Tokina should be the perfect complement. If that seems like what you need, get the Tokina and don’t look back. Here are some links to good sources for the Tokina: B&H Photo Video; Adorama; and Amazon.com.
By the way, if you decide to get the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens for your D80, here are some good sources: B&H Photo Video; Adorama; and Amazon.com.
Hope whatever you get, you enjoy! Let us know back here what you learn and your experience!
Excellent review Rick, thanks for posting. I would like to add a comment on the 18-200 however. I bought this lens when it first came out and recently paired it with my new D90. The results are amazing shots however on the wide end at 18mm when taking shots of sunsets for example, the barrel distortion is insane!!!
I am thinking of moving to the 28-300 to get more distance but am wondering if this lens suffers from this also?
Regards,
Rick
Thanks Rick. I think you’re going to encounter a fair amount of barrel distortion at the wide end of any mega-zoom. It remains true with the 28-300 as it is for the 18-200 DX. For instance, I recently picked up the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4, and it has much less distortion than does the 28-300 at 28mm. But I still carry and use the 28-300 anyway; most of the time for most of my jobs, I am shooting impromptu opportunities and don’t want or have the time to change to the wide prime every time.
Generally, any wide will have some distortion, but it is less and easier to manage in a prime than in a zoom. A prime can be built specifically to handle the distortion. When a company engineers a lens to cover the insane zoom ranges of these lenses, some tradeoffs have to be made. The internal optics have to make quite an adjustment to give crisp focus across the whole range; I’m not aware of any mega-zoom that doesn’t have barrel distortion at the wide end. (If you find one, let us all know!) On the “plus” side, I found that when I planned for the distortion, sometimes it worked in favor of a better capture. I also find the distortion in these lenses is pretty simple and straightforward — the lens correction tools built into many software packages seems to be able to handle it pretty handily. (I use Lightroom and Photoshop CS5; your mileage may vary.)
Cheers!
Hmmmm. Your results tell me I’m better off with Prime lenses. The results are so much sharper and contrasty with prime. I know the convenience factor but an image speaks a thousand words and there’s no getting past your results.
The cheap 50mm 1.8 blows it out of the water from your images. And the weight makes it not the best walkaround do it all lens. That has to be the deciding factor.
Pete, you are unquestionably correct. You will always be better off with primes than with a zoom. Even moreso when considering a megazoom like the 28-300. Very rarely is a zoom going to be able to match a prime for weight, contrast, or sharpness. This is tradeoff inherent in picking a zoom lens. I would not advocate a zoom lens if you can afford a range of primes and don’t want or need the convenience of a zoom. But. A range of primes that could cover the whole range of the 28-300 zoom would be much more costly, would collectively weigh more, and would require you to change lenses more often in use.
Every photographer should choose the right tools for their particular needs and style. You should absolutely shell out the money and buy a full range of primes if you don’t need the convenience of a zoom — that is, if you (a) have the money to buy many lenses instead of one; (b) don’t need to carry all your lenses on long international trips yourself (or are willing to check them in luggage and/or hire a sherpa to lug them for you); or (c) shoot exclusively in controlled or planned circumstances and therefore don’t have need of frequent, quick lens changes. For myself, I use both primes (when I need perfection and have time and opportunity to plan the shot) and zooms (walking-around lenses). I wouldn’t say I have a complete range of either type lens — I have a few of each that best suit my personal style and needs. Used properly, a mega-zoom can render sharp, contrasty images that are quite good enough for a poster-sized print and/or publication. In fact, most of my post popular commercial shots have come from serendipitous circumstances and a zoom lens. (For instance, the August 2010 cover of The Washingtonian Magazine was shot with the Nikon 18-200 DX; I had to run to the spot for the shot and never would have made it if I had had to change lenses too.) Carrying a zoom is way easier on my arms and back than carrying the whole range of primes and then doing the contortions needed to quickly change lenses when conditions change during a trip. But a prime will almost always be sharper and more contrasty edge-to-edge when compared against a zoom at that focal length.
So. Suffice it to say I would agree. May we all make few mistakes and love the lenses we’ve bought.
Hello Rick,
I just got the Nikon 28-300mm to replace my Nikon 70-300 4.5 VR II and 24-85mm 3.5. Yet to extensively test the lens but so far so good. The one thing I did notice is that at 300mm the 28-300 seems to be about a foot shorter than the 70-300mm at that length. Can you tell me if this is also the case with your copy?
Many thanks
Frank
Sorry Frank — I’m not understanding your question. It would not surprise me if the mega-zoom 28-300 is not as exact in terms of distance measurement or depth of field as a telephoto zoom like the 70-300. Unfortunately, I don’t have the 70-300, so don’t have a standard of comparison — but it seems logical that the extended zoom range would make the finicky adjustments needed to be “spot on” more problematic when the lens has to handle from 28mm to 300mm vice the more limited telephoto range. The geometry needed to cover the wide-to-telephoto range would seem to be much more challenging than the more straigthforward shift needed when all the focal lengths are in the telephoto range (from 70 to 300). In practice, though, I’m not sure it will make a siginificant difference. I do know that with the 28-300, I’ve now stopped carrying my 70-200. I expect the 70-200 was technically more precise, but since the camera is doing through-the-lens metering and focus anyway, I just don’t usually notice the little differences. Hey — above is just a guess at what I think you might have been asking about. Let us all know if I’ve missed the boat! Cheers.
Hello Rick, why is everybody recommanding the Nikkor 18-200mm in stead of the new 28-300mm. I have the 18-200mm lens and in the long end the quality is not great at all! 18mm is not that wide and I am always carrying my 12-24mm wideangle lens wich I use a lot. I come from primes and having only two lenses to cover 12mm till 300mm is simply incredible. Bonus: I can leave my 70-300mm vr lens at home as well! Two lenses for everything in a much better quality and wider range than the 18-200mm lens! OK you have to change lenses but think like a pro, just decide whether you need wide or tele and you have everything in pro quality!
Many thanks for the taking the time to reply.
I expected both the 28-300mm and the 70-300 to have exactly the same range when extended to 300mm however my 28-300 falls short by about 6-8 inches when focusing on the same subject compared to the 70-300. So the images produced by the 70-300 appear closer to the subject. However I personally have noticed that the 28-300mm is considerably sharper and has much better contrast than the 70-300 at 300mm so if that’s the trade off than fair enough.
Frank, the 28-300 focus internaly, and can focus to 50cm. This means it cannot be a 300mm if the subject is close. So at 30m to a subject it is a 260mm. At 1.4m it is a 150mm. look at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm under Focal length.
I’ve tested the lens against my 70-300 and the 16-85.
the picture quality is almost the same. Didn’t see a diff from the 16-85. very small diff from the 70-300 at the 300mm.
It is a lot better quality than the 18-200. first of, the 18-200 is quit bad at 200mm. second the 18-200 is terrible at say 70mm.
The 28-300 is great at all focal length.
About it being not wide enough on a DX:
I have a D300. for really wide take the 10-20. 16mm is not enough.
for most cases you can zoom with your legs: one step back and it is a 16mm.
test it yourself and see.
If you are in a gem, you can also take a panorama view if you do a couple of shots and use a software to combine.
Help !
I’m a complete newbie, totally confused (but extremely picky about picture quality). I’ve just purchased a D300s body. I believe in buying the best that you can at the time as technology moves so quickly.
I have spent probably the last 6 hours looking at reviews. There seems to be a wavering between the 18 – 200 and the 28 – 300 and possibly the 70 – 200.
I would be grateful on your thoughts for the best lens(es).
From a wide angle perspective the 10 – 24 seems to be the front runner.
If I am correct the D300s is a DX camera and the FX would cut down the width of angle ? and therefore probably not the best purchase ?
Your thoughts would be most appreciated.
Many thanks
Delwyn
Sorry Delwyn … as I’m sure your finely tuned senses detected, Nancy and I have been on the road for a while ….
The lens you should buy will pretty much depend on what type of shooting you prefer. (Also, I’m guessing, as you already know.) All the lenses you mentioned are terrific — not a “dog” in the bunch; but they are actually quite different and would be selected for very different purposes. My advice: Think about how you prefer to work, then pick the best starter lens for that purpose.
The 10-24 is a fabulous wide lens. On a DX camera it will give you equivalent focal lengths of 15mm to 36mm lenses on a film camera. That puts this lens pretty firmly in the “wide to normal-wide” range, but it will not give you the more focused perspective of a “normal” lens or the reach of a telephoto. Lots of people misunderstand the point of a wide lens. A couple of points about “wide” shooting: Generally, pros will tell you that you go wide if your purpose is to get very close to your subject (fill the frame with the foreground) and/or have an insane depth of field (so more of the frame is in focus, near to far). Go wide angle if you are either (a) interested in “pro” use to fill the frame or if (b) you are looking for snapshots — that is, you hope to “get it all in” and capture the memory, but have no particular plans to sell or “go pro.” If you’re looking to “go wide,” I would recommend you also look at the Tokina 11-16mm. That Tokina has been extremely highly rated and some reviewers have said it is better than Nikon’s best (wide zoom). It’s also a fixed f/2.8, so it’s faster than the Nikon 10-24. But the Nikkor lens does start to approach the “normal” range on a DX camera, so if undecided you might prefer to go with the greater zoom range of the Nikon. I’ve used both of these and liked them both — but for true “wide angle” use, I’d pick the Tokina. Here are some links to check out the Tokina 11-16mm wide zoom: Amazon; B&H Photo; Adorama. (If you’re still looking for the greater zoom range of the Nikkor — also a great lens in its own right — here are links to the Nikkor wide zoom: Adorama; Amazon; B&H Photo.)
The other lenses mentioned are not really comparable to the wide end 10-24 DX. Where the 10-24 is a wide zoom, the others provide the telephoto end. If you want a “do-everything,” “walking around” lens that zooms from wide to telephoto, then go with the 18-200 DX. Attached to your DX camera, that lens will give you the full extreme wide to telephoto zoom range (equivalent to about 28mm to about 300mm lens on a 35mm film camera). If you want “do everything” on your DX camera, that 18-200mm DX is the lens to get. Check it out at these links: B&H Photo; Adorama; Amazon.
On a DX camera, unless you have a really good reason for wanting the longer reach I do not think I would bother with the 28-300mm zoom. On a DX camera that zoom will give you only normal to extreme telephoto; you will lose the whole wide end. It is also more expensive than the 18-200 DX that is made for your DX camera.
The 70-200 is a whole different thing. There you are at the telephoto end of the zoom range and lose both the wide and the “normal” focal lengths. On your DX camera, the 70-200 will give equivalent of 105mm to 300mm lenses attached to a film camera. That’s all telephoto. (In fairness 105mm can be a good focal length for portrait work, but it really isn’t going to give you the depth of field or angle to cover a room or take “normal” snapshot photos.) Here are some links for that 70-200mm zoom: Adorama; Amazon; B&H Photo.
Whatever you get, good luck with it!
I shoot with a D300s and was using the older 18-200 VR version for a while. As a travel, all purpose “go to” lens it was very practical to have. Once I started using primes, I think I got spoiled for the speed and sharpness and found that I wanted more than what the 18-200 could give me. So I sold it to help fund a replacement lens. I’ve been researching a lot – trying to decide which way to go.
I tried out a 70-200 2.8 VR and although it’s great, I found it a tad intimidating in size and price. Then I considered the new 24-120 f/4..but it hasn’t enough reach for me. After getting flabbergasted over the choices to make, I found out about the 28-300. It seemed like a safe choice so I ordered it and received it today.
After shooting some shots this afternoon, I already see that it is miles ahead of the old 18-200 in sharpness and contrast. Post processing wasn’t a hassle like I was used to with the distortions and CA’s from the old lens. These improvements, along with the extra reach, make it well worth the extra cost for me. My only concern is the obvious, this lens will not come close to the speed I enjoy with the primes that I use. But at least while traveling -it takes away the burden of weight, cost, and inconvenience of the alternatives.
You are welcome to check out the shots I’ve gotten so far with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patti-jo/sets/72157625151114959/with/5129583865/
Hey Patti. Thanks for the review. Your shots are terrific! For the rest of our readers (both of you … you know who you are!), I thought I’d post a link to your quick review / thoughts on using the 28-300 on your DX camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patti-jo/5134467556/in/set-72157625151114959/
Thanks! Cheers!
I bought the 28-300 to replace the 18-200 on my D90, which is DX also. I, too, found that I rarely used the wide angle and often yearned for more telephoto reach. I’ve got the 80-200 f/2.8 D, which is my favorite lens bar none, but it’s very heavy for daily use and too obtrusive for street photos. The 28-300 on a DX is the equivalent of 42-450 on a film camera – perfect for the kinds of subjects I usually shoot.
hello friends.. i have my d300 with sigma 17-70mm f/2.8. i am now searching for zoom nikkor lens, either 70-300 or
28-300, which is better (the sharpness and the SWM softness)? tq
Thanks for the informative review. It only confirms my enthusiasm for the lens, which I purchased from Alkit as soon as it was announced. I do a lot of travel photography amd find it cumbersome and inefficient to have to switch from the 24-70 to the 70-200. When I was using the D2X, I was thrilled with the results from the 18-200, but I don’t like using it on the D3.
So this lens answered my prayers – will, perhaps that’s too strong, because I don’t pray for lenses. But in any event, it provides me with what I need. When my wife and I take our next exotic trip, I will only take this lens with me.
I am surprised that DP Review and none of the magazines review this lens.
Hi Nawi,
I have the D300, 70-300, and 28-300.
The 70-300 and 28-300 are actually almost the same in terms of sharpness and contrast.
If you do a pixel piping, remember to remove the UV filters. It is that close.
But – they are not the same when you zoom on close subject. The 70-300 is a true 300mm, and the 28-300 is not.
This means that the minimum focus on the 28-300 is 50cm, and 150cm in the 70-300. however, at 150cm you get 300mm zoom with the 70-300 but only 150mm or so effectively on the 28-300.
So it depends on your need – want true 300mm when ever you focus, or want “macro like” (only 3:1. True macro is 1:1)
Thank you for the review. Exactly the kind I find helpful. I am a technical person and certainly can understand MTF charts, but it is not worth a thing if I don’t know how they relate to the (perceived) quality (and I guess it takes years of starring at these charts to be able to see how much will the actual image suffer from deviation from the straight line on the top). The fact that hi-caliber working professional finds the tool adequate for his work and expresses his handling experiences as satisfactory tells me everything I need to know. No need for vignetting figures. And although I agree with the comment above that some bigger crops would be helpful, I’d say if you say “good” quality, it is surely good for me.
Now to the 18-200 vs 28-300.
With 28-300 is (according to tech data and the many reviews, I don’t own either one)
what you get is:
– 200-300 (300-450 for DX) mm range
– better build quality (e.g. no zoom creep)
– some sharpness
– ability to migrate it to FX body
What you loose is:
– 18-28 (27-42 for DX) mm range
– about $350
So for me personally it is no-brainer – I’d go for 28-300, because extra 150 on the tele end is more important than 15mm on the wide and $350 combined, because I intend to shoot water sports (very difficult to get close to the action) with it and have no idea what do I do with 27-42 range (I’m getting recommended Tokina 11-16 for the wide angle, btw).
Thanks again for sharing.
[…] can read a review from a non-professional reviewer who is a professional shooter here. And you can read a shorter review from respected Adobe writer/reviewer Terry White here. Both […]
Very good review.I found the 28-300 much better than I had imagined.It is extremely sharp at all apertures and focal distances. I have taken the same photos with the 70-300 and found sharper the 28-300.Compared to the famous 14-24 at f8 nobody looking at my photos was able to tell the difference between both,even at 100% crops.The 14-24 at f2.8 is exceptional and has something impossible to be described.
You are a life saver! I recently was lucky enough to get a Nikon FX D700. I am considering selling my old NikonD200 and DX 18-200mm lens. I love my old lens but wanted to move to a telephoto lens for an FX camera.By selling the camera and the DX lens I will beable to buy the 28-300 lens.Thus replacing a brilliant len with its FX equilivalent. Your article has given me the confidence to go ahead!!! Thank you
Thanks for that, Cheryl! That’s the whole point of the review. Piling on a bit: I recently returned from a trip to Indonesia, where I used the 28-300 almost exclusively (except indoors, where I really needed a wider aperature for the low light). The lens performed fabulously; as predicted, it has become my default “walking around” lens and I still really recommend it for that.
Thank you Rick, for this great review.
I am a hiker who carries a D80 and 3 lenses and got tired of constantly changing my 24mm, 35-70, and 70-200 to shoot landscape one minute and a bird the next minute.
Ignoring the DX/FX factor, I picked up the 28-300 yesterday and am ready to put it to use on an excursion this weekend. Reading your review, I guess I should have picked up the 18-200 instead, but I already have the 70-200 and wanted a longer reach.
Did I make a silly investment or can I console myself by simply carrying around my 24mm for the wide angle…?
It hurts to think about “spending” upwards to a D700 just because of the FX factor after the big investment. Besides, I like my D80 and its only 4yrs old…
Hi Tom. I guess by now you’re already embarked on your bike excursion…. But FWIW ….
I do NOT think you made a dumb investment. If you wanted the longer reach, you got it. A lot of folks with DX sensor cameras are getting great results with the 28-300mm. You may find you’ve made your 35-70 and 70-200 lenses redundant — or at least you don’t need to carry them as often. I’d think that’ll be another benefit as we move into summer activities (biking) season. I would do as you suggest and carry the 24mm for wide when you want it. The 28-300 should be a fine “biking around” lens and its range will really cut down on lens changes (and therefore weight of lenses you have to carry). Most of the time, you’ll probably leave that on the camera. The 24mm shouldn’t take up much extra space — and, let’s face it, usually you will know when you want to go wide. Most of the time you’ll have time for the lens change. (Here’s another idea: Try carrying the camera with the 24 on it while you’re on the bike. 24mm doesn’t take a lot of focus time or user attention and has enormous depth of field … I’ve gotten some really fun results just holding up the camera and shooting without careful framing, while riding my bike or running or even while riding in a car. However, note: I would not ever advocate doing anything that takes your attention off the road or trail while moving. A bike fall with camera in-hand could end up being a REALLY expensive and painful experiment!)
If you like the D80, I would not change camera bodies. The D80 is a great camera and will turn out professional-quality results (always depending on what you’re trying to achieve). I didn’t go to FX until I found my results using DX were lagging my vision of what I was trying to achieve. If you aren’t missing anything, there is no reason to spend more money. That may come in future … or it may not. Don’t feel pressured to spend more money just to get a “higher-end label” or to get to FX. That would be a waste of money until/unless you have determined you need something your existing camera doesn’t do. (And if you find you need a new camera in two years, well, then consider the models that are out then. The technology will keep changing … save your money until you actually have a need for the “upgrade.”)
Good luck, good shooting, good fun!
Thanks for this review, it is clear, not too sophisticated, and really persuaded me I did the right thing to buy this lens. It should be in my hands in a couple of days, so I am really looking forward to putting it on my D700 and start using. Regards from Italy, Lorenzo.
Thanks, Lorenzo. Hope you enjoy! We’d love to hear your reactions when you’ve had a chance to use the lens.