Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

28-300 quality varies a lot?

kevwil88

US
12 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
kevwil88 Registered since 07th Oct 2012
Sat 20-Oct-12 04:59 PM

* some rambling frustration here, sorry for the length.
* tl;dr - is the 28-300 worth hunting for a good copy?

I rented a 28-300 for my D600 last week and it was fantastic - very sharp, great colors & contrast, useful in so may circumstances that I never had to change lenses. Hallelujah! Although being quite heavy, it was a joy to use. After sending it back, I went shopping for a good price online. I bought a refurbished one. It arrived Thursday, and ... it's really not as sharp as the rental, despite the rental being banged up and worn.

Some reviews of the 28-300 hate it, others love it and some pros use it as their main lens. I seem to have experienced both in less than a week, and it's shaking my confidence in getting a good lens for my high resolution FX camera investment. Did I buy a Sigma by mistake?

It seems my D600 is not thrilled with less than excellent optics, which is making my wallet critically incontinent. The sensor also seems to have a kinky obsession with dust. These two factors have me hunting for a newer, sharper, better sealed lens that can do it all.

I can't decide what to do. I have a Tamron 17-35, a Nikon 28-105, and a Nikon 50/1.8. I really thought the 28-300 would be the One Lens for 80% of my shooting, and if I kept the rental copy it would be. But, I'm thinking of returning this refurbished lens, and buying & returning lenses over and over sounds like an exhausting and frustrating waste of time.

If the rumored 70-200/4 VR becomes reality, I'd be tempted by a 24-85 VR / 70-200/4 VR combo, but I'd still be changing lenses a lot. I could spend more on a 24-120/4 VR but I'd still be looking for a longer telephoto.

I shoot outdoors 99% of the time, in the woods, usually involving hiking to a location. I need/want sharpness, lightness, and hate dealing with dust spots in post. Zooms work very for me; now if only Nikon made a 20-200mm f/4 VR FX lens that's razor sharp and weighs no more than my 28-105 ......

Advice? Try another 28-300?

G