Totally unscientific pics of 28-300VR

[Anson]

sharpness on par with the tamron 28-300 vc, but at 5.6 tele lens and afs...think it still worth the price over the tamron version

Agree.. based on the price different, if I am a Nikon users I would get the Nikon instead.

 

[quizesilver]

you are looking to get 28-300 and 11-16?
yeah get cross over the focal length but performance on both lens is diff, i think
broad daylight where we shoot at high f so 28-300 is not an issue, can reach further somemore. it's ok to be at 28(42), We can always move back if needed
but it's at night/indoor sometimes you need to open up, that's where our tammy comes into place.
plus I have a SB800 to assist at time


still trying to convince myself to buy this lens hehe
can someone poison me hehe

the 28-300 i am looking at capturing some animal (i cant say wild life in singapore) haha
the 11-16 for the landscape. which i am using the 17-50 now to do it. but sometime is tight.

for u at least u still got the sb800. i got none. haha if to be poison i think i will die 1st.

anyway from the pic at flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/jachen000/sets/72157624752041771/
it look like can get.

 

[D-Wade]

but that one was taken using D700,
can't really compare
I only have D90

 

[quizesilver]

but that one was taken using D700,
can't really compare
I only have D90

it will be gd enuff.
also if i am nt wrong there is no editing of the pic to it. thus it is as real how the lens work.
on the D700 part. dun worry too. it juz give u more zoom.

 

[D-Wade]

it will be gd enuff.
also if i am nt wrong there is no editing of the pic to it. thus it is as real how the lens work.
on the D700 part. dun worry too. it juz give u more zoom.

ok, come on, let's buy together hehe

 

[quizesilver]

ok, come on, let's buy together hehe

i will be getting the 11-16 1st.

 

[Luv4nature]

Bjorn Rorslett (one who compiled a very comprehensive review of Nikon lenses over the years), made a brief and positive comments on the lens, especially on its IR capability.

photo.net

Bob Krist also made a short review on this lens.

Blog

 

[prolensdreamer]

Bjorn Rorslett (one who compiled a very comprehensive review of Nikon lenses over the years), made a brief and positive comments on the lens, especially on its IR capability.

photo.net

Bob Krist also made a short review on this lens.

Blog

the IQ is impressive.Thanks for the sharing. BTW, KRW had also praised highly on this Gem.

 

[Luv4nature]

Two more user reports by:

Terry White

The Photo Tourist

 

[nightwolf75]

eh... i dunno about your guys... but KRW's "reviews" should always be consumed with a sack of salt....

just found wat moose peterson has to say abt the 28-300VR.
http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=17121

 

[D-Wade]

just want to make sure
the only disadvantage using this on DX body is loosing out on the wide right?

 

[jeff7id]

just want to make sure
the only disadvantage using this on DX body is loosing out on the wide right?

The other disadvatage is the price, as for the same focal length there is 18-200 lens (x1.5=28-300), which is cheaper than 28-300 lens.

 

[D-Wade]

The other disadvatage is the price, as for the same focal length there is 18-200 lens (x1.5=28-300), which is cheaper than 28-300 lens.

but i believe 28-300 has better IQ compared to 18-200

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I know KRW must be served with a sag of salt, but this is interesting:

"Here are my observations, comparing other lenses to the 300mm setting at various distances. The links go to the lenses compared at each focal length. I don't show it here, but yes, the $150 70-300mm G really does go to 300mm at all focus distances, but it only focuses to 5 feet (1.5 meters).

Distance Effective focal length at 300mm setting
Infinity - 300mm
1,200 feet (400m) - 290mm
100 feet (30m) - 260mm
50 feet (15m) - 250mm
12.5 feet (3.8m) - 200mm
9.3 feet (2.8m) - 180mm
4.5 feet (1.4m)- 150mm
3.5 feet - 140mm
2.25 feet - 140mm
1.5 feet - 130mm
So yes, at 1.5 feet, this 28-300mm is really only a 130mm lens. Tough."