Nikon AF-S 28-300 VR

Hey guys,

I've been using my D4 more and more recently as my walkaround body and for walkaround the 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 AFD has gotten a bunch of time on the body. It has been quite good but for general walkaround I have started thinking about the 28-300 as a more flexible option (focal length and VR being two of the interesting capabilities of the lens).

Does anyone have and/or use one of these lenses? Can you offer opinions on IQ, effectiveness of the VR, speed of AF and how close the MFD is?

Thanks in advance

smythie wrote in post #17400492
Hey guys,

I've been using my D4 more and more recently as my walkaround body and for walkaround the 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 AFD has gotten a bunch of time on the body. It has been quite good but for general walkaround I have started thinking about the 28-300 as a more flexible option (focal length and VR being two of the interesting capabilities of the lens).

Does anyone have and/or use one of these lenses? Can you offer opinions on IQ, effectiveness of the VR, speed of AF and how close the MFD is?

Thanks in advance

From what I understand (never had one though) it's not a great lens, even considering that it's a super-zoom. Lots of distortion, lots of CA and average (for a super-zoom) sharpness. Nikon and Tamron both make a very decent 70-300VR (lots argue that the Tammy is the better lens) which are pretty small and light and would be a great companion to your 24-85.

Maybe there's a good super-zoom out there, I'm just not aware of one

Thanks Bob

As you know, i have the 70-300Vr and its excellent, sharp, reliable and very fast focus esp on good bodies.

P.

I have use 99% of the time a 24-70 on my D700 . For traveling , I carry a wide ( 16-35 VRII ) and a general purpose zoom

Long story short I just had to have a 28-300 VRII and quite frankly I found that huge zoom range was too much of a compromise . You really notice when you crop into the corners etc

Furthermore, I found that when back from vacation the vast majority of the focal length I used was less than 130mm !

Since I had convinced myself that I "needed" a travel lens , I picked up the 24-120 VRII . This lens is outstanding and far better than the VRI version

I did some pixel peeping ( using tripod and studio lights ) and without a doubt the 24-120 VRII is noticeably sharper than the 28-300VRII . It actually holds its own well against the 24-70 2.8 !

Not sure if I had a bum 28-300 but regardless of the sharpness issue , the focus speed is frustratingly slow ...so much so that I had to change my AF-C A1 priority selection to "release + focus " to let it bang away. When I had it to "focus" there was noticeable delay before release. This was very annoying !

In all fairness there is a much longer focal path and I am use to my 24-70 and 70-200

At any rate, i ended up selling it on CL at a loss

Even though I bought this for a "travel lens" I find now that I am using my 24-70 less and less

I case you were wondering , I also had Nikon 70-300 and Tamron 70-300 ( borrowed both ) while pixel peeping the 28-300 so I could see how the superzoom compared in the longer focal lengths. My reference was my 70-300

I ended up buying the Tamron Di VC 70-300 for long travel lens

Bottom line is I think you will be much happier with a 24-120 F4 VRII as a walkabout lens

If you are concerned about close focus distance both the 24-120 and 28-300 were about the same. I ended up picking up a Canon 500D close up filter to use with my Nikon....worked great !

Thanks for the great information. I'll look into the newer 24-120

I had the 24-120mm most people think the 28-300mm is very close you just don't get a constant F4. Both are very good lenses.