Nikon 28-300 mm VR

On 2010-08-20 18:25:21 -0700, "Peter" said:

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
news:2010081920014275249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
Nikon 28-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR

Well, okay. I liked my 18-200 mm DX VR until my wife stuck it on her
camera. Now she won't give it back. And, really, that lens was not too
bad. It was not too heavy and it is a great travel lens.

But, hmm. My D3x is a big, heavy camera. Sure, I take it traveling and
I do stuff with it, but it is not a carry-around-all-day camera. It
also has big, heavy lenses. This new lens could replace three different
lenses. Except it also is a big, heavy lens and it appears some real
compromises have been made in performance.

The question is when I would ever use a D3x to do the job of a D3100,
eh? Which is what this lens does for the D3x.

Meh. I am having a hard time getting excited about it. I might get it
anyway, but, really, I don't have a clear use for this lens.



My only complaints about that lens:

Low contrast
Not very sharp
Lens creep
The 200, is not a real 200 at close focus.

Well, exactly. And I suspect the 28-300 probably has many of the same
faults. Won't know until I try one, though.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010082107405875249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-20 18:29:30 -0700, "Peter" said:

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
news:2010081920014275249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
Nikon 28-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR

Well, okay. I liked my 18-200 mm DX VR until my wife stuck it on her
camera. Now she won't give it back. And, really, that lens was not too
bad. It was not too heavy and it is a great travel lens.

But, hmm. My D3x is a big, heavy camera. Sure, I take it traveling and
I do stuff with it, but it is not a carry-around-all-day camera. It
also has big, heavy lenses. This new lens could replace three different
lenses. Except it also is a big, heavy lens and it appears some real
compromises have been made in performance.

The question is when I would ever use a D3x to do the job of a D3100,
eh? Which is what this lens does for the D3x.

Meh. I am having a hard time getting excited about it. I might get it
anyway, but, really, I don't have a clear use for this lens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I've always been told that the pros don't mind carrying the heavier
bodies and lenses.



They either get a Sherpa or an R strap. I am far from a pro, but highly
recommend the R strap. I literally saves my neck. I have both the double
and singe versions.

http://www.blackrapid.com/

I love my R straps.



And they're much cheaper than a Sherpa

--
Peter

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:25:18 +0100, Bruce
wrote:



This is a lens for the undiscerning FX DSLR owner. You would need to
have extremely low expectations to be happy with it.


Why do I think this comment was directed at me or people like me? (-:
I used my 11 year old Nikon 70-300 lens for a party two weeks ago. The
pictures are great and I printed one on my Epson R1900 at 8.5 x 11 and
it was stunning. I could have easily gone larger. I am comparing the
quality to professional wedding photographer work I've seen with
better lenses and better technique and this one did very well.

Would the low end, the 70 down to 28 make that much of a difference
and would VR mitigate some of that difference. Would it matter if you
were shooting outdoors or indoors with this 28-300? I am glad Nikon
is addressing the lower cost FX market because I don't want to spend
$5,000 for a lens.

Whatever lens you use, the D700 is a spectacular camera. I do want to
stay with Nikon lenses because Nikon of Am is 2 miles from me and the
quality is wonderful. Actually, Tamron and Sigma is here on Long
Island too and Canon is building it's North American Headquarters just
south of Nikon's. I think with all the others it is hit or miss;
maybe great optics but the mechanics are more short term.

The problem is for some of us non pros is where do you start with new
lenses because you really don't want too much overlap, although a
little overlap is good. If you decide on the 70-200 F2.8 VRII you
might want a 28-70 F2.8 VRII but one doesn't exist.

Bruce wrote:
My expectations for this Nikkor are low.

Even Nikon's MTF chart seem to indicate that this is going to be a very
poor performer. Apart from the high ISO performance of the D700, it
looks like you'd get better performance, more range, from a complete kit
of D3100, 18-55, and 55-300 lenses, which costs only about the same of
the 28-300 on it's own.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:11:31 -0400, Alan Calan wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:25:18 +0100, Bruce
: wrote:
:
:
:
: This is a lens for the undiscerning FX DSLR owner. You would need to
: have extremely low expectations to be happy with it.
:
:
: Why do I think this comment was directed at me or people like me? (-:
: I used my 11 year old Nikon 70-300 lens for a party two weeks ago. The
: pictures are great and I printed one on my Epson R1900 at 8.5 x 11 and
: it was stunning. I could have easily gone larger. I am comparing the
: quality to professional wedding photographer work I've seen with
: better lenses and better technique and this one did very well.
:
: Would the low end, the 70 down to 28 make that much of a difference
: and would VR mitigate some of that difference. Would it matter if you
: were shooting outdoors or indoors with this 28-300? I am glad Nikon
: is addressing the lower cost FX market because I don't want to spend
: $5,000 for a lens.
:
: Whatever lens you use, the D700 is a spectacular camera. I do want to
: stay with Nikon lenses because Nikon of Am is 2 miles from me and the
: quality is wonderful. Actually, Tamron and Sigma is here on Long
: Island too and Canon is building its North American Headquarters just
: south of Nikon's. ...

They're not going to relocate the Jamesburg shop, I hope. It's less than five
miles out of my way when I drive to my daughter's house in Philadelphia.

Bob