Nikon 28-300mm VrII f/3.5-5.6 Lens

[Norm Dulak]

I am planning a trip to the Falklands, South Georgia Island and the Antarctic Peninsula. Because this is such a long trip and space may be at a premium along the way, I want to reduce equipment weight and bulk as much as possible, consistent with image quality.

My wife and I presently have Nikon D 300 cameras, with the following lenses:

2 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lenses,
1 300mm f/4 + 1.4X TC,
2 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses, and
1 Tokina 11-16mm lens.

We definitely will take the 300mm + TC and the Tokina with us, but we hope to improve on our other lenses. Although we think the 80-400mm lenses are excellent and we have had terrific success with them over the years, they are relatively bulky and heavy, and probably not the best choices for zodiac landings and photography on our trip.

We've considered the 70-300mm VRII lens but are concerned about IQ at the longer focal lengths, if the lens is not stopped down substantially. But a newer possibility is now available.

It's the Nikkor 28-300mm lens, that now sells for a bit over $1K. On paper, and from the limited reviews available, this lens might be exactly what we need for Antarctica.

Would anyone who has experience with this lens please let me know what they think?

Norm

[Norm Dulak]

Thanks for looking at this posting.

I wish there were some comments, but I'm afraid that this lens is so new that there isn't much known about sharpness through its range. Nikon's MTF Curves for the lens aren't great, and I suppose that's not surprising for a lens with such a wide zoom range.

We may have to lug those 80-400's after all.

[David Shertzer]

I know Moose Peterson recently made comments on his blog (9-21-2010) about this lens. So, you may want to check it out.

[Norm Dulak]

Thanks Dave. Moose praises the lens. That's good to know.

[Desmond Chan]

Moose praises the lens. That's good to know.

Some say that's his job...if you know what I mean ;)

[Norm Dulak]

Some say that's his job...if you know what I mean ;)

You make a good point, Desmond. Before I would spend $2K+ on two of these lenses, I'd have to see tests of sharpness, with actual images throughout the lens range.:p

[Nancy A Elwood]

I recommend the 70-300VR. I have great success with it through out its range. This one is at 300mm.

[Norm Dulak]

I recommend the 70-300VR. I have great success with it through out its range. This one is at 300mm.

Wow Nancy, that's good! :D

It seems to me though that as zoom ranges expand, it becomes technically more difficult to make lenses that don't produce serious distortions, especially at the periphery. Also, the costs go up; the price of the 28-300mm lens is about double that of the 70-300mm lens. So I think your advice is sound.

But with any such lenses, I suspect that really good (read sharp) results depend upon stopping down the lens as much as practicable. In the brilliant light of Antarctica, I don't think that will be an issue. But when I saw your input into a different thread concerning the 70-300mm lens itself, I looked into some of your postings involving that lens. What I learned was that one of your very sharp images was captured at f/13.

What was the f stop that produced the excellent image you've shown here? :confused:

Regardless of what it was, many thanks for your comments here, and best wishes!

Norm

[Tom Graham]

Also note that both lenses are FX sensor coverage. But since you are using D300, a DX sensor, there may be even less differences between the two. I've been using the 70-300VR for couple years on D200 and like it. Of course if you could both share a 200-400 . . . . :)
Tom

[Nancy A Elwood]

Wow Nancy, that's good! :D

It seems to me though that as zoom ranges expand, it becomes technically more difficult to make lenses that don't produce serious distortions, especially at the periphery. Also, the costs go up; the price of the 28-300mm lens is about double that of the 70-300mm lens. So I think your advice is sound.

But with any such lenses, I suspect that really good (read sharp) results depend upon stopping down the lens as much as practicable. In the brilliant light of Antarctica, I don't think that will be an issue. But when I saw your input into a different thread concerning the 70-300mm lens itself, I looked into some of your postings involving that lens. What I learned was that one of your very sharp images was captured at f/13.

What was the f stop that produced the excellent image you've shown here? :confused:

Regardless of what it was, many thanks for your comments here, and best wishes!

Norm

Norm the image I think you are referring to is the osprey family which I shot at f/13 because I wanted the entire family in focus. Otherwise I use the lens at around f/7.1, sometimes f/6.3 other times f/8. Anything over that is for the DOF issues with the subject.

Have a GREAT time!! Antarctica is a very magical place and South Georgia is well unbelievable!!!

[Norm Dulak]

Nancy:

That's all very reasonable. And it shows that the 70-300mm is a very good lens! :)

Thanks.

Norm

[Norm Dulak]

Also note that both lenses are FX sensor coverage. But since you are using D300, a DX sensor, there may be even less differences between the two. I've been using the 70-300VR for couple years on D200 and like it. Of course if you could both share a 200-400 . . . . :)
Tom

Thanks Tom:

But if we could both share a 200-400, one of us would have to be Rambo (for strength to carry the lens) and Bill Gates (to afford the lens)! :D

Norm

[Pasquier]

Both Bob Krist and Bjørn Rorslett are impressed by this lens.
I have had it for just under a week and am very pleasantly surprised by the quality - 1st impressions are on: www.pasquierphoto.blogspot.com
HTH, P:)

[Dan Herman]

Ken Rockwell posted his review of this lens. I like the sharpness comparisons.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

[Norm Dulak]

It's great to have such good information on this new lens, especially the actual image examples. Thanks!