AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (2191) vs AF-S DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (2196)

Has anybody compared these two lenses? Any links to articles out there? Of course one is FX format, min zoom of 28mm, and more expensive, and the other is DX format, min zoom of 18mm, and cheaper. Also, the FX lens has three rear elements rather than 2 FWIW. Both are described as "heavy" though not as heavy as the 70-200 f/2.8, and half the price. I was wondering if either one is known for better image quality, or if they are about the same. I have a good wide angle zoom, so I wouldn't mind putting the FX lens on my DX camera.

Thanks

Hi Jonas
If your camera will allow you to use the D series lenses take a look at A 300f4 or the 80-200 f2.8. These have great I.Q. and much cheaper. if you look at the 80-200 skip ht push pull and look at the double ring version.. Hope this helps.
Harle

Thanks. I have a 80-200 f/2.8 AF lens that I want to sell I just bought the 55-200 AF-S VRII lens (to go with my 18-55 AF-S VRII). I decided not to go with the all in one concept. I need AF-S for my new camera. I took this pic of the old lens with the new lens.

Jonas Grumby said:

Thanks. I have a 80-200 f/2.8 AF lens that I want to sell I just bought the 55-200 AF-S VRII lens (to go with my 18-55 AF-S VRII). I decided not to go with the all in one concept. I need AF-S for my new camera. I took this pic of the old lens with the new lens.

Click to expand...

I can understand the need for any AF at all, but you still have the D2X and 55-200 is an honest joke compared to the 80-200.

On-topic topic, why not 70-300 VR? Will resolve on the DX better, cost a mere 300$ used, and serve as a very trusty tool.