28-300mm on D750 -- Is this a dumb idea?

Rtwinger

New member
I am in shut-down mode from analysis paralysis between the D750 and the D7200 and then what lens to get?

If I choose the D750 with the ultra-zoom 28-300 is that just a waste of the full-frame D750? If I want some reach is it better to go with 50mm and the 70-300? (I know this misses the wide angle)

If I want telephoto capapability am I better off with the D7200 and the 18-300?

Thanks for any help as I am completely stuck right now choosing no camera instead of the wrong camera.:grumpy:
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I was under the impression that if you go full frame you gotta go with fast glass

FX or DX sensor makes no difference about "fast". f/2.8 is f/2.8, regardless of which sensor is behind it. The sensor merely might crop the view it offers.

Most of the faster f/2.8 lenses are full frame lens, but that's just because full frame better justifies the greater lens price.

If you want long telephoto results, the DX sensor is popular for that (for example, sports and wildlife).

The fact is that a 300 mm lens is a 300 mm lens regardless of which sensor is behind it, it performs exactly the same as it always did, i.e., 300 mm on any sensor.

But the smaller DX sensor merely crops the lens view smaller. Then when we enlarge the smaller image more to be equivalent size again, the enlargement gives a telephoto appearance. In contrast, the larger uncropped FX image offers the wider full view.

You can see the same thing in your photo editor with any image by merely zooming in larger. That crops and enlarges, exactly same effect as is seen with the DX sensor. Enlargement is enlargement, and it looks "telephoto" then. But this enlargement is a very different subject than "fast".
 
Last edited:

TieuNgao

Senior Member
No doubt that the lens 28-300 is for convenience. I think it's 3rd-tier on IQ. If you don't want to spend a lot of money for 1st-tier lenses then I think the 2nd-tier lenses are the best compromise. For zoom lenses I'd recommend Nikon 16-35mm f/4 (or Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8), Sigma 24-105mm f/4 and Nikon 70-200mm f/4. You may also want some good primes, such as 20 or 24, 35, 50, and 85mm. If you're in sports/wildlife photography then you need at least one more lens, perhaps Nikon 200-500 or Sigma/Tamron 150-600.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Either one of the mentioned setup will be much better than the "No camera" setup you have now.

One can analyze, study all web reviews and charts and will usually just get confused about which one to choose.

Buying a camera is NOT a wedding contract. And it will be cheaper later to upgrade than it would be to divorce. :)

The one thing you haven't mentioned is your budget. If unlimited, then there should be no problem as you can always get better lenses later. But if you have a specific amount you are planning to spend on your hobby (unless you're a pro), then you probably should start with the D7200 and the 18-300. Plus, get yourself a wide-angle (Tokina is a favorite) and a 35mm 1,8 prime lens. With this you should be good to go for a while and you shouldn't be limited in your photo opportunities.

Then when/if you become more serious and/or you start to get the very famous NAS obsession, you'll end up buying much more.

Enjoy the camera you'll be buying and just do it.
 

Ad B

Senior Member
Hi,

When I bought my D750, 3 years ago, I also bought a 24-120 F4 VR and a 70-200 F4 VR lens.
The 24-120 was a fine lens, but I nearly never used that 70-200 F4 lens.
1,5 year back, I wanted a change…I bought a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 lens, sold my 24-120 and 70-200 lens.
For a decent walk-around lens I bought a Tamron 28-300 VC PZD lens.
I use it now at my new D850, I will never sell that lens!
Quite good to very goodsharpness, versatility use is enormous and quite light.
"Pros" will stick their noses in the air for such a super-zoom lens,I love it!!
At my Flickr site you can see several pics taken with my 28-300, made withmy D750 and a few with my D850.
Also test pics from my AF fine tuning of the D850.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ad_b


 

jmcadory

Senior Member
I have fast Nikon 24-70 & 70-200 lenses which I love but on trips that involve airplanes or cruise ships or any circumstance where weight is an issue I only take the 28-300. For travel it is a great single lens that covers a great focal range and since most of my travel photography is for daylight shots the slower lens is ok. It's not as sharp as I would like but with a little Lightroom or Photoshop help it gets the job done. Another upside is that it is a much lighter lens which is a real benefit on long days of walking around.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I have fast Nikon 24-70 & 70-200 lenses which I love but on trips that involve airplanes or cruise ships or any circumstance where weight is an issue I only take the 28-300. For travel it is a great single lens that covers a great focal range and since most of my travel photography is for daylight shots the slower lens is ok. It's not as sharp as I would like but with a little Lightroom or Photoshop help it gets the job done. Another upside is that it is a much lighter lens which is a real benefit on long days of walking around.

That's my same reason for the 24-120, it's so much easier to carry the camera and one lens all day than the bag full of f/2.8 lenses. :) But the 24-120 seems a pretty fine lens, no complaints. Here's some 24-120 snapshots with 100% crops.

801_0182.jpg


801_0182b.jpg


800_5172.jpg

800_5172b.jpg

801_0797.jpg

801_0797b.jpg

This one is inside a dark cathedral in Monaco (where Grace Kelly is buried). At f/4, this one was 1/20 second handheld at ISO 3200, 38 mm.

This next is less sharp, I think that was my fault. This is our Coast Guard protecting the cruise ship leaving Florida.
 

Attachments

  • 801_0103.jpg
    801_0103.jpg
    322.1 KB · Views: 146
  • 801_0103b.jpg
    801_0103b.jpg
    176 KB · Views: 129
Last edited:
Top