[mst]

Not exactly a dream lens, I'm afraid ...



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/57...s28300vrff



-- Markus

[Bare]

Sure that Nikon can produce a better all-round lens but then it will be 2-3x more expensive and larger than this one.

[janez]

'... any super zoom lens is full of compromises to achieve the huge focal range.'



This is unfortunately thrue. Thanks for test.

[frank]

I guess that this lens is not much better (if better) than the Tamron 28-300mm except that it has a VR.

[Guest]

[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='' />

[mst]

[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

[mst]

[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

[Klaus]

[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.

[Brightcolours]

[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.

[frank]

Sorry，I forgot that the Tamron has VC...