Nikon 28-300: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 17:45, 23 July 2022

Probably the only lens you will need on a full frame Nikon camera. I took only this lens to a trip to Iceland and of the 2'556 pictures that I ended up keeping, the focal length distribution is given above. This is also a bit personal, but like with most zooms I tend to use the extremes much more than the in between focal lengths.

The universal zoom for full frame

If you have a full frame Nikon camera, this is the only lens you will probably need. It is truly a universal lens. Starts from quite wide and goes quite long and everything in between. It is kind of a let down, you can have this lens, and stop worrying about anything else. This is not a light lens, with the camera, you will be carrying around 1.5kg weight, but if you are travelling and you wonder what you should be taking with you, this solves all your problems.

There is a fair question that needs to be asked, if you buy such a universal zoom is there any point in buying something else? This is really an annoying lens because if you buy it as your first lens, whatever you buy afterwards is going to have a harder time impressing you. On the other hand, if you end up buying it later, it will actually make a lot of your equipment redundant. The problem is, there are no real issues with this lens. As an example, you can not say Nikon 70-300 is better for something than the Nikon 28-300. Similarly the great Nikon 24-70 is technically faster and also quite a bit wider, it is by all accounts a great lens (albeit a very expensive one), but it is really not that much better (and significantly shorter) than the 28-300. So this lens will ruin a lot of other equipment for you.

If you want to compare, this has the same range and mostly the same performance as its APS-C cousin the Nikon 18-200 which can be had (especially used) for much cheaper and is also much lighter.

Versions

This is as far as I know the only version. Replaced the earlier Nikon 28-200

My Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6D

Price	Not really cheap
Weight	Heavy, 800g
Good for	General purpose for everything
New or used	Sells usually for about 450 used, which is (comparatively) overpriced. New is around 900.

Full Frame

This is the universal zoom specifically for the full frame camera. This is why it was made, this lens should only be used on a full frame camera, nothing else.

APS-C

Please do not use this on a APS-C camera, it will technically work as a 42-450mm zoom. But the Nikon 18-200 covers the same range, is lighter and much cheaper. There is absolutely no point for this lens on a APS-C.

Gallery / see also

This is the lens at 28mm, see the next shot for the same position with 300mm
This is the lens at 300mm from the same position as the previous one at 28mm to show the range.
The lens expands quite a bit at 300mm.
Again a close-up shot at 160mm. The real beauty of this particular picture is not that it is extremely sharp, or perfect (it is quite ok), but how effortless the camera makes this shot happen. This is handled at 1/40s, this is one of three shots, of which only one was not good enough.
Another cute shot of Bianca the Bear.
Comparing with the Nikon 18-200 on the right. They are essentially the same lens, once for APS-C and once for full frame.
Quick shot out of the window.
300mm and a minimum focus distance of about half a meter gets you really close.. But it is still not a real macro, at least something this lens can not do.
Ok I admit, this is a strange combination to use the Nikon 28-300 on an APS-C camera (here the Nikon D500. But it works. Here it even gives a bit of automatic cropping to make this picture look like it was taken with a macro lens.

These pages are for Amateur Photographers and not really for seasoned photographers and professionals. I have no affiliation or commercial interest with any brand/make. I write from my own experience. I ended up using mainly Nikon, so I am more familiar with this brand than others. See price for notes on pricing as well as photography related links.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <div class="col-xs-12 col-md-6 col-lg-6">
 [[File:nikon28-300.jpg|class=img-responsive]]
+Probably the ''only'' lens you will need on a [[full frame]] Nikon camera.
+[[File:nikon28-300range.png|class=img-responsive]]
+I took ''only'' this lens to a trip to [https://iis-people.ee.ethz.ch/~kgf/pics/iceland/index.html Iceland] and of the 2'556 pictures that I ended up keeping, the [[focal length]] distribution is given above. This is also a bit personal, but like with most [[zooms]] I tend to use the extremes much more than the in between [[focal length]]s.
 </div>
@@ Line 13: / Line 16: @@
 <div class="panel-heading">'''The [[universal zoom]] for [[full frame]]'''</div>
 <div class="panel-body">
 If you have a [[full frame]] Nikon camera, this ''is'' the only lens you will probably need. It is truly a universal lens. Starts from quite wide and goes quite long and everything in between. It is kind of a let down, you can have this lens, and stop worrying about anything else. This is not a light lens, with the camera, you will be carrying around 1.5kg weight, but if you are travelling and you wonder what you should be taking with you, this solves all your problems.
-If you want to compare, this has the same range and mostly the same performance as its [[APS-C]] cousin the [[Nikon 18-200]] which can be had (especially [[used|new or used]]) for much cheaper and is also much lighter.
+There is a fair question that needs to be asked, if you buy such a [[universal zoom]] is there any point in buying something else? This is really an annoying lens because if you buy it as your first lens, whatever you buy afterwards is going to have a harder time impressing you. On the other hand, if you end up buying it later, it will actually make a lot of your equipment redundant. The problem is, there are no real issues with this lens. As an example, you can not say [[Nikon 70-300]] is better for something than the [[Nikon 28-300]]. Similarly the great [[Nikon 24-70]] is technically faster and also quite a bit wider, it is by all accounts a great lens (albeit a very expensive one), but it is really not ''that'' much better (and significantly shorter) than the 28-300. So this lens will ruin a lot of other equipment for you.
+If you want to compare, this has the same range and mostly the same performance as its [[APS-C]] cousin the [[Nikon 18-200]] which can be had (especially [[used]]) for much cheaper and is also much lighter.
 ====Versions====
@@ Line 32: / Line 37: @@
 <table class="table table-striped">
-<tr> <th>Price</th>           <td>Relatively cheap</td>   </tr>
+<tr> <th>Price</th>           <td>Not really cheap</td>   </tr>
 <tr> <th>Weight</th>          <td>Heavy, 800g</td>  </tr>
 <tr> <th>Good for</th>        <td>General purpose for everything</td>        </tr>
@@ Line 65: / Line 70: @@
 </div>
 ----
-=== Gallery ===
+=== Gallery / [https://iis-people.ee.ethz.ch/~kgf/pics/lens12.html see also ]===
 <gallery mode=slideshow>
-File:nikon28-200_extended.jpg|The 28-200 is very compact, but when you extend to 200mm, it telescopes out.
+File:nikon28-300_at28.jpg|This is the lens at 28mm, see the next shot for the same position with 300mm
-File:nikon28-200_at28.jpg|Here is the 28-200 at 28mm, quite a bit of distortion, and unfortunately quite a bit of [[minimum focus distance]] which makes it a bit difficult as normally [[wide angle]] shots need you to come closer than you think.
+File:nikon28-300_at300.jpg|This is the lens at 300mm from the same position as the previous one at 28mm to show the range.
-File:nikon28-200_at200.jpg|The Nikon 28-200 at 200mm, this is actually quite enough for most people.
+File:nikon28-300_extended.jpg|The lens expands quite a bit at 300mm.
-File:nikon28-200_at120.jpg|Same lens, different perspectives. Here we have 120mm [[focal length]]
+File:nikon28-300_dalmore.jpg|Again a close-up shot at 160mm. The real beauty of this particular picture is not that it is extremely sharp, or perfect (it is quite ok), but how effortless the camera makes this shot happen. This is handled at <kbd>1/40s</kbd>, this is one of three shots, of which only one was not good enough.
-File:nikon28-200_at85.jpg|And once in 85mm [[focal length]]. These are length were the lens works brilliantly. For 70-120mm you would anyway not come very close to your subjects, and at these [[focal lengths]] you can still manage to hold the camera straight enough to get excellent images, also the lens has less of issues in this range.
+File:nikon28-300_bianca.jpg|Another cute shot of Bianca the Bear.
-File:Nikon28-200pumpkin.jpg|A similar shot to [[:File:Nikon135pumpkin.jpg]] which was shot from a similar angle using probably one of the finest lenses at around the same [[focal length]], the [[Nikon 135]]. You can probably agree that it is not the [[lens]] that makes the difference.
+File:nikon28-300_vs_18_200.jpg|Comparing with the [[Nikon 18-200]] on the right. They are essentially the same lens, once for [[APS-C]] and once for [[full frame]].
+File:nikon28-300_scenery.jpg|Quick shot out of the window.
+File:nikon28-300_closeup.jpg|300mm and a [[minimum focus distance]] of about half a meter gets you really close.. But it is still not a real macro, at least something this lens can not do.
+File:nikon28_300_flower.jpg|Ok I admit, this is a strange combination to use the [[Nikon 28-300]] on an [[APS-C]] camera (here the [[Nikon D500]]. But it works. Here it even gives a bit of automatic [[cropping]] to make this picture look like it was taken with a [[macro]] lens.
 </gallery>
 </div>