Performance of the 28-300 VR

Jan T L

New member
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 to what extent 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!
 

Sambr

Senior Member
I have this lens it's a great travel lens worked great on the D3s when I had one. It works equally as well on my D4 & D800. I do a lot of wildlife photography, sometimes it's the only lens I take with me if I am wanting to travel "lite"
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I have one that I purchased for a trip to Yosemite for much the same reason - does the job of a bunch of lenses. I am very happy with it. Not thrilled, but very happy. I'm using a D7000, so the cropped DX sensor needs to be factored into my review. Is it soft? Yes, perhaps a bit less crisp than some of my other lenses, including the 18-105 kit lens, which I found myself using more than the 28-300 for the park's grand vistas (should have invested in an ultrawide as well). The lens creep can be very annoying as you carry it around. It's much worse than on other zooms I have, so I quickly got in the habit of locking it while walking. The VR works well, and I find myself using it a lot for concerts when I can only have a single camera & lens. I've been able to shoot handheld at full extension at 1/60 if I remember not to track the music in my head to avoid bouncing.

I bought it early in my journey into the DSLR world. If I had it to do over again I probably would have skipped this one and bought a pair of lenses to cover the same sweep. I did a metadata search on my Lightroom library and if I exclude concert shots it's the least used lens I have. I use my Sigma 150-500mm more as a wildlife lens, when I know I'll be requiring the long end of the zoom, and either the 18-105mm or 24-70mm I now have when I am going to be on the shorter end. I'll probably keep it around for concert use alone - until I find something else.

Here's a link to a site that I love to go to when people talk about lens performance. This guy has done a lot of work to show actual performance test results of a lot of popular lenses with the ability to do side by side comparisons by simply moving your cursor over the test image. What I like to do is pit a lens against itself so I can see how it changes at the same focal length but at different apertures. If it comes across correctly it should show the lens you're interested in a side-by-side. Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR Nikkor Lens Image Quality

I've also linked a couple photos taken with it. Both have been processed with Lightroom and one or two of the Nik tools, but you should hopefully be able to get a feel for what it can do in two very different situations. The concert shot was at ISO 3200 so there's been some noise reduction and is with the lens wide open. The falls are at max DOF and taken on my 5th day with the lens, so I was still getting used to it. I rarely go to f22 any more with it as it will soften at extremes.

My recommendation to anyone interested would be to borrow/rent one of these first and see for yourself. And if you can't, try and track one down used so you can at least turn it around without too much heartache if it doesn't work out. Not a "Wow!!" lens, but not one I'd kick to the curb.
 

Attachments

  • 20110621-DSC_8527_HDR.jpg
    20110621-DSC_8527_HDR.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 1,331
  • 20121119-_JK26718-Edit-Edit.jpg
    20121119-_JK26718-Edit-Edit.jpg
    511.3 KB · Views: 735
Last edited:

Jan T L

New member
Thanks for the answers thus far. That lens comparison gadget is great. I don't know if the person who made it should be honoured or psychiatrically evaluated for OCD:D

Looking at it, it seems that a fair number of lenses are quite a lot better than the 28-300 across the board, so I'm definitely going to give it more thought. I do have another camera which is a fixed lens of 28-70, so I can always use that for the wides and instead get a more dedicated zoom or even another good prime for the D3S. We'll see.

Thanks again for the answers so far.
 
Top