03-14-2011, 12:04 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300057351' post='6719']
Personally I would prefer a D700 with 28-300 VR over an APS-C body with 18-200 VR anytime, since I have never been impressed by the performance of the 18-200 VR and the images I have seen from the 28-300 VR do not half bad.
[/quote]
Sorry, you seem to miss again. According to first tests from trusted sites the 28-300 strugless much more on full frame body than the 18-200 does on APS-C cameras.
This is just the sharpness (measured on 2 samples):
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts...loader.htm
Compared to 18-200:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts...loader.htm
Not showing distortion etc. here, which seems also worse in 28-300 btw... To get me right, I´m very fond of ultrazooms for travelling purposes when they are well-done compromise (which is 18-200II, IMHO). I´m afraid the 28-300 is not that one (nor is any current ultrazoom on full frame, actually - probably too much of challange here).
Personally I would prefer a D700 with 28-300 VR over an APS-C body with 18-200 VR anytime, since I have never been impressed by the performance of the 18-200 VR and the images I have seen from the 28-300 VR do not half bad.
[/quote]
Sorry, you seem to miss again. According to first tests from trusted sites the 28-300 strugless much more on full frame body than the 18-200 does on APS-C cameras.
This is just the sharpness (measured on 2 samples):
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts...loader.htm
Compared to 18-200:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts...loader.htm
Not showing distortion etc. here, which seems also worse in 28-300 btw... To get me right, I´m very fond of ultrazooms for travelling purposes when they are well-done compromise (which is 18-200II, IMHO). I´m afraid the 28-300 is not that one (nor is any current ultrazoom on full frame, actually - probably too much of challange here).