Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Printable Version +- 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) - Martin_MM - 04-13-2011 Unfortunately, not even a hint of positive surprise in this 2011 Nikon superzoom design... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I´ve got to admit I expected something one star better at least; not exactly a miracle, of course but a similar quality to the 18-200 DX design at least. Well, no FX superzoom has stepped out of the too-much-of-a-compromise shadow yet... despite all the computing power being employed in the latest lens designs. Now it also seems more and more the Nikon 28-300 is rather overpriced, isn´t it? Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - joachim - 04-13-2011 [quote name='mst' timestamp='1302674561' post='7577'] 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 [/quote] Hi Markus, Just to add, that your finding are absolutely in line with slrgear: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1360/cat/13 and they tested two copies. So don't worry about the fanboys and fangirls <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> To me it builds some confidence in the test results, if different lens testers come to compatible conclusions on a given lens. Typically I find that the case between photozone and slrgear. Most of the time, if either of you declares a lens to be a dog, the other site follows and similar for a good result. Gives confidence that the bottom line of your and their efforts has some significance beyond sample variation. Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Klaus - 04-13-2011 [quote name='joachim' timestamp='1302712357' post='7605'] Hi Markus, Just to add, that your finding are absolutely in line with slrgear: [url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1360/cat/13"]http://www.slrgear.c...uct/1360/cat/13[/url] and they tested two copies. So don't worry about the fanboys and fangirls <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> To me it builds some confidence in the test results, if different lens testers come to compatible conclusions on a given lens. Typically I find that the case between photozone and slrgear. Most of the time, if either of you declares a lens to be a dog, the other site follows and similar for a good result. Gives confidence that the bottom line of your and their efforts has some significance beyond sample variation. [/quote] Yes, that's always a good approach. We've all a slightly different approach thus testing slightly different aspects. Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Guest - 04-13-2011 [quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302679877' post='7579'] 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. [/quote] I agree completely. There've just been a lot of "28-300 is better than 18-200 DX" type of comments. I've always been critical about those, and well, maybe justly so. However, the 28-300 may actually perform adequately on a 12 MP FX sensor due to the low pixel density, I don't know. Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR (FX) - Rainer - 04-14-2011 I think anyone who has expected more from the 28-300 VR should just do a quick compare to the EF 28-300L. If you compare measurements and findings of the two lenses and if you compare the mechanical and optical effort that was made in the Canon-L you know why it is the better (and far more expensive) lens of the two. (The 28-300L is still far from being really good at any specific focal length ... but it is good at being a superzoom). So, the Nikkor is what it is, an OEM superzoom for a very affordable price, and with moderate weight, but including the compromises needed to make such a lens. Yes, it will certainly make some users happy and will disappoint others. A comparison to the Tamron 28-300 VC will be interesting. Optically, the Tamron is likely not far from the Nikkor, but I doubt that buildquality is comparable. Just my 2cts ... Rainer |