Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jan T L" data-source="post: 93244" data-attributes="member: 11787">Sorry if this one might have been done a few dozen times before.I'm usually quite decisive when it comes to lenses, but I'm really on the fence about this one.I have just the one lens at the moment for my D3S; it's the 105 F2 DC and it's fantastic. I'm keeping it.However, I'm going traveling over the winter break and I was seriously considering the 28-300. I would love to take a huge bag of pro glass, but that's neither financially possible nor does it make for easy traveling. Plus I don't make a living from this at the moment (one day, one day, he says!). So the 28-300 seems like a handy proposition.I've read up on it online, and I've read a range of opinions from &quot;decent but loaded with distortion and soft wide open&quot; to &quot;amazing, does the job of eight lenses&quot;. I know that a very well respected UK wildlife shooter uses one, and so does Jay Maisel on his videos on Kelby Training. It can't be a bad lens if they're using it.I saw one website slag it off, but they were just shooting straight lines and jerking off over MTF charts. Probably Leica lovers.I can imagine that it won't match the IQ of a prime like the 105. The question is to what extent will it not match the IQ of a good prime?If it will be &quot;worse if you pixel peep&quot; then I don't care too much. If it's &quot;noticeably worse even at normal view&quot; then that would be a drag.I'd love to hear from people who've used it on a regular basis, whether you liked it, didn't like it, and why.Thanks in advance for any input!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jan T L, post: 93244, member: 11787"] Sorry if this one might have been done a few dozen times before. I'm usually quite decisive when it comes to lenses, but I'm really on the fence about this one. I have just the one lens at the moment for my D3S; it's the 105 F2 DC and it's fantastic. I'm keeping it. However, I'm going traveling over the winter break and I was seriously considering the 28-300. I would love to take a huge bag of pro glass, but that's neither financially possible nor does it make for easy traveling. Plus I don't make a living from this at the moment (one day, one day, he says!). So the 28-300 seems like a handy proposition. I've read up on it online, and I've read a range of opinions from "decent but loaded with distortion and soft wide open" to "amazing, does the job of eight lenses". I know that a very well respected UK wildlife shooter uses one, and so does Jay Maisel on his videos on Kelby Training. It can't be a bad lens if they're using it. I saw one website slag it off, but they were just shooting straight lines and jerking off over MTF charts. Probably Leica lovers. I can imagine that it won't match the IQ of a prime like the 105. The question is [I]to what extent [/I]will it not match the IQ of a good prime? If it will be "worse if you pixel peep" then I don't care too much. If it's "noticeably worse even at normal view" then that would be a drag. I'd love to hear from people who've used it on a regular basis, whether you liked it, didn't like it, and why. Thanks in advance for any input! [/QUOTE]

Verification