+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Nikon (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) (/showthread.php?tid=3271)
Pages:
1
2
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - mst - 04-12-2011
Not exactly a dream lens, I'm afraid ...
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff
-- Markus
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Bare - 04-13-2011
Sure that Nikon can produce a better all-round lens but then it will be 2-3x more expensive and larger than this one.
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - janez - 04-13-2011
'... any super zoom lens is full of compromises to achieve the huge focal range.'
This is unfortunately thrue. Thanks for test.
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - frank - 04-13-2011
I guess that this lens is not much better (if better) than the Tamron 28-300mm except that it has a VR.
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Guest - 04-13-2011
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302644150' post='7568']
Not exactly a dream lens, I'm afraid ...
[/quote]
Uh-oh... I guess you'll get some complaints from happy users. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - mst - 04-13-2011
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1302673266' post='7572']
I guess that this lens is not much better (if better) than the Tamron 28-300mm except that it has a VR.
[/quote]
I'm tempted to find out. The Tamron is available with VC, too.
-- Markus
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - mst - 04-13-2011
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1302674358' post='7575']
Uh-oh... I guess you'll get some complaints from happy users. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
I'm sure I will. Unforuntately, that doesn't make the lens any better <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />-- Markus
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Klaus - 04-13-2011
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1302674358' post='7575']
Uh-oh... I guess you'll get some complaints from happy users. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
Well, I'm wondering how these happy users would argue that the lens is any better relative to the 24-120/4 which has a 2.5* rating.
It is viable to be happy with a lens no matter how good or bad it is. However, it still sits within a global performance context.
And I think it's perfectly Ok to point out that it is worse than a 24-120/4 which is worse than a 24-70/2.8 which is worse than a 35/1.4.
We rated the 28-300L with 2.5* and looking at the charts this fits fine. That lens has the double price tag.
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Brightcolours - 04-13-2011
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1302673266' post='7572']
I guess that this lens is not much better (if better) than the Tamron 28-300mm except that it has a VR.
[/quote]
VR is image stabilization, The Tamron has VC which is... image stabilization.
The Nikon has better contrast and better (more accurate) AF.
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - frank - 04-13-2011
Sorry，I forgot that the Tamron has VC...