Was a bit surprised that there is no thread on this lens :-)
What was a bigger surprise was the IQ from this lens in the samples. They look sharp wide open !! even though the mtfs show otherwise? what a wonder of a lens for the D700!
New AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR FX lens
(21 posts) (8 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Nah! For the difference in price I'd rather get the new 24-120 f4. Now that's gonna be an awesome "kit" lens for the next D700 :^)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yeah for the next D700 but I think this 28-300 is going to be a real hit, esp if there is a consumer FX!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I will start off my saying I am a complete beginner to all this lens talk but what is the $650 difference between this lens and this new one?
Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHNEA?ie=UTF8&tag=nikorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003ZSHNEANikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHNCC?ie=UTF8&tag=nikorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003ZSHNCCSpecs seem so similar.
Also which lens would produce better image quality the Nikon 28-300 mm or the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD. Thanks in advance.
Matt
Posted 2 years ago # -
??? this thread is about the 28-300. It's wider than the 55-300 and it can be used on FX and DX cameras. The 55-300 is DX only. Also the construction of the 28-300 (metal mount) is better than the all plastic 55-300.
The Nikon for sure is waaay better than the 18-270.
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
??? this thread is about the 28-300. It's wider than the 55-300 and it can be used on FX and DX cameras. The 55-300 is DX only. Also the construction of the 28-300 (metal mount) is better than the all plastic 55-300.The Nikon for sure is waaay better than the 18-270.
Thanks. If I use DX system would the pics at say 100mm be the same with either Nikon lens?
Matt
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's about time. Canon has had a 28-300 for years. I'd imagine the Nikon being smaller and better. It's 1000 dollars cheaper than the Canon version.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, well, well.... I guess NEVER! isn't forever then...
Posted 2 years ago # -
qdmbucks said:
Thanks. If I use DX system would the pics at say 100mm be the same with either Nikon lens?Matt
Hard to say which is better at this point but I'd assume that they'll be pretty evenly matched in the "middle" focal lengths. It'll be at the extreme ends that you'll start to see a difference but probably not by much. The DX lens will probably score better with a DX camera and FX with FX. It really just comes down to DX/FX compatibility and all plastic versus some metal.
Posted 2 years ago # -
qdmbucks said:
Thanks. If I use DX system would the pics at say 100mm be the same with either Nikon lens?Matt
I think you are referring to the angle of view, and yes, they will be the same. As for the quality, we can't say without using the lenses ourselves, or seeing some reliable reviews, but since they are both consumer lenses, they will probably be comparable.
The lenses are actually very different, and the cost difference is partly a factor of convenience, and the difficulty in designing a usable 10x zoom. For one thing, the 28-300mm lens can be used on an FX camera; if you put the 55-300 on an FX camera, the corners will be black, or at least very dark. 28mm is also much, much wider than 55mm. You shouldn't think of it as being 27mm shorter, but that it is 50% shorter. It's like the difference between 300 and 600mm, which I'm sure you can imagine is very significant. This means that you could use the 28-300 exclusively for an entire vacation (as long as your wishes do not extend to specialized photos like macro), while with the 55-300 you will definitely want another lens along with you. Many people consider it valuable not to have to change lenses, which is understandable.
The build quality is likely somewhat worse on the 55-300 (do we know it has a plastic mount, or is that speculation, by the way?), but honestly, if you don't throw your gear around or use it in dusty/stormy conditions, it will probably not matter. My 18-55 kit lens creaks a bit if you squeeze it, but it works just fine.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
-
I have been a Canon User but I am upgrading and I am ambivilent as to Canon or Nikon as long as the camera I eventually purchase has the features I am looking for.
I think an upgraded 28-300, which is a huge plus to FX cameras. The bigger question for me is when is an upgraded D700 going to be released? D3s is simply too big and heavy, and doesn't have the latest video.
By the way, the Canon 28-300 is not a very good lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue said:
I think you are referring to the angle of view, and yes, they will be the same. As for the quality, we can't say without using the lenses ourselves, or seeing some reliable reviews, but since they are both consumer lenses, they will probably be comparable.The lenses are actually very different, and the cost difference is partly a factor of convenience, and the difficulty in designing a usable 10x zoom. For one thing, the 28-300mm lens can be used on an FX camera; if you put the 55-300 on an FX camera, the corners will be black, or at least very dark. 28mm is also much, much wider than 55mm. You shouldn't think of it as being 27mm shorter, but that it is 50% shorter. It's like the difference between 300 and 600mm, which I'm sure you can imagine is very significant. This means that you could use the 28-300 exclusively for an entire vacation (as long as your wishes do not extend to specialized photos like macro), while with the 55-300 you will definitely want another lens along with you. Many people consider it valuable not to have to change lenses, which is understandable.
The build quality is likely somewhat worse on the 55-300 (do we know it has a plastic mount, or is that speculation, by the way?), but honestly, if you don't throw your gear around or use it in dusty/stormy conditions, it will probably not matter. My 18-55 kit lens creaks a bit if you squeeze it, but it works just fine.
Yes and no. I would hate for 28 to be my widest angle on vacation. I would pair it with a 12-24 at least :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
qdmbucks said:
I will start off my saying I am a complete beginner to all this lens talk but what is the $650 difference between this lens and this new one?Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHNEA?ie=UTF8&tag=nikorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003ZSHNEANikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHNCC?ie=UTF8&tag=nikorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003ZSHNCCSpecs seem so similar.
Also which lens would produce better image quality the Nikon 28-300 mm or the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD. Thanks in advance.
Matt
I would check out this thread too
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thank you NikoDoby, ShadeofBlue, and tcole1983 for your very detailed responses that finally got me on the same page as the rest of you. You really cleared things up for me. Thanks again.
Matt
Posted 2 years ago # -
You're very welcome Matt :^)
Posted 2 years ago # -
bob krist review... yes to be taken with a bit of salt as he is "friendly" with nikon but interesting nevertheless.
http://www.bobkrist.com/blog/samples-with-the-new-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6g-ed-vr/
What caught my eye was that he had that lens to play with in february!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Krist does a lot of "beta" testing of lenses I'm sure so not that surprising.
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Krist does a lot of "beta" testing of lenses I'm sure so not that surprising.no thats not what i meant. just saying that if the lens is available for bob in february/6 months ago then I am just thinking that the design was created at least 2 maybe 3 years ago...ie before the d3/D700 was released? just makes you wonder what else is in the labs now!
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
