I am shooting with a D3s and I am interested to know if anyone has used the 28-300vr lens. I am looking at this lens for a travel lens. How is the quality of the images? This is a convenient lens range for travel. Thanks..
Fri 31-Aug-12 05:37 PM | edited Sat 01-Sep-12 10:36 AM by LMMiller9
Yes, it is an excellent travel lens, assuming you need that much reach. I think it depends on the type of travel you do. If you are walking around Paris and taking shots of buildings and sites you will probably not use that long range of that lens. In that case, in my opinion, that 24-120 is a better choice.
You will find a general consensus here that the 28-300 is a remarkably good lens given the range. This gallery was shot mostly with this lens: http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9/image/134390488. It was great because it was an outdoor bluegrass concert and to get close to the stage... well, 300mm was helpful.
It is a bit on the heavy side, however. And, the 24-120/f4 is generally considered to provide slightly better image quality. Range vs image quality. Both are very good.
Visit my website: www.futurelookphotography.com. Go to the Travel tab and you will see that most of the latest pics in this section were taken with my D800 and 28-300 combo from a recent river cruise in Europe. I am extremely pleased with the results. I can tell you that I have many keepers as a result. What a wonderful travel lens. I also took my 16-35 which I barely used to avoid changing lenses too often because of rain and wind encountered in various cities.
Your comments in the guest section will be greatly appreciated.
>I am shooting with a D3s and I am interested to know if >anyone has used the 28-300vr lens. I am looking at this lens >for a travel lens. How is the quality of the images? This is >a convenient lens range for travel. Thanks..
I just got this lens. At first it came malfunctioning so I dropped it off at Nikon. I just picked it up and it is working perfectly. Apparently focusing mechanism was replaced and helicoid was replaced. Before I dropped it off 24-120mm at F5.6 was sharper than 28-300mm. Now it is the other way around. Here is wide open shot at 300mm. No post processing of any kind. 100% crop of 12mp from 36mp. Click to make larger.
Sat 01-Sep-12 05:31 PM | edited Sat 01-Sep-12 05:46 PM by InsaneO
>>Before I dropped it off 24-120mm at F5.6 was sharper >than >>28-300mm. Now it is the other way around. > >Perhaps your 24-120mm would also benefit from attention at >Nikon service?
You read my mind. I left it there.
I also used 28-300mm for a theater rehearsal in a small room full range from end to end. Got really good shots with it. Low light, 1600-3200 ISO. Almost 300 shots and not even one OOF. VR helped a lot too. Here is a sample. 1600 ISO perfect jump and in focus.
I found Mick's comparison (see corrected link above) useful, and thought it was carried out in a careful and professional manner.
Please give some thought to the content and tone of your posts here - new members sometimes don't immediately realise that we try hard to maintain a helpful, polite and friendly atmosphere in the Forums - even when we disagree with each other