[hwyhobo]

Being new to the forum here (although I have read the Photozone reviews for a long time, love them), I didn't see if there is a schedule of lenses to be reviewed. Hope to see the Nikon 28-300 reviewed soon. It looks like a potentially nice hiking lens. In anticipation of the review, I would also love to see an unusual comparison - I would love to see the quality of the lens compared to 700-200 f/2.8 II _with the new 2xTCIII_ at their overlapping focal lengths (140-300mm). I know the cost and weight make them seem like totally different animals, but even more so, I would love to see how much in IQ I give up by going with a smaller, lighter, and cheaper lens.



Also, I understand the issue with magnification and IF mechanism, but it would be very helpful to have a few simple data points, for instance, at a distance of 50 cm the max focal length is 100 mm, at a distance of 2 m the max focal length is ..., 5 m ..., 20 m .... It would also be nice to know at which distance the lens can become a real 300 mm, assuming it is short of infinity.



Thanks for a great site.

[anyscreenamewilldo]

well i hate to see a question go unanswered, and as i'm the wrong person to ask anything, this answer may or may not be useless - and you've put so much in the above that my mind went blank - so i'll ignore it if i may and here goes -



i've heard from a friend of a friend that i met on the internet that size matters, so a 70-200 + a 2X will really attract a lot of friendly comments from all your new best friends, but for me i'd never put a TC on any lens especially a 2X, whether it's a version 1, 2, or 3 - surely you'd buy the super 70-200 for it's quality pictures, why spoil it with more bits of magnifying glass -



so yep, buy the 70-200, can't go wrong, no worries -



now the 28-300 - i don't have one or even anything very much nikon now (and i do miss some of the nikkors), but i do know someone who posts excellent quality pictures who has tried this lens - his opinion is that it lacks the crystal sharpness of the 70-300, is similar to the 18-200 and that it misses some of the fine details in the picture and is a tad soft around the edges - having said that, he goes for super quality pictures and it's hard to keep up -



so buy the 70-300 and a 16-85 = two lenses + a camera - can't weigh too much on a hike (well, compared to my weighty bag) and you should have lovely pictures - it's only money -



and if you want really really light (and maybe or maybe not soft corners) ask klaus, but he's away in some place in the deep south and is unfortunately possibly enjoying some rain or mountain snow :-( but i hope not too chilly



it's more than likely that all the above doesn't answer any of your specific questions but i hope that it's something interesting to read

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']

I would also love to see an unusual comparison - I would love to see the quality of the lens compared to 700-200 f/2.8 II _with the new 2xTCIII_ at their overlapping focal lengths (140-300mm).

[/quote]

Wouldn't the 1.4x TC make more sense because then there'll be more overlap (99-283mm) with the 28-300? Also it'll be a f/4 vs. f/~4-5.6 comparison.





[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']

I know the cost and weight make them seem like totally different animals, but even more so, I would love to see how much in IQ I give up by going with a smaller, lighter, and cheaper lens.

[/quote]

While some people love their TCs, my recommendation is that if you're going to use one lens with the TC attached most of the time, it's better to get the other lens that doesn't need the TC. TCs are evil in my book <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



And if you care about IQ, why bother with zooms? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']

It would also be nice to know at which distance the lens can become a real 300 mm, assuming it is short of infinity.

[/quote]

It'll be 300 at infinity... unless of course, the actual focal length at the tele end is like 299mm or something <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> The question is how wide does the tele-end get at close distances.



GTW

[hwyhobo]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1287118241' post='3637']

Wouldn't the 1.4x TC make more sense because then there'll be more overlap (99-283mm) with the 28-300? [/quote]

No, TC would not be just for academic exercise of comparing to another lens, but rather for practical purposes.

While some people love their TCs, my recommendation is that if you're going to use one lens with the TC attached most of the time, it's better to get the other lens that doesn't need the TC. TCs are evil in my book <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Well, 2xTCIII has excellent opinion for quality.

And if you care about IQ, why bother with zooms? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Are you saying Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 II has poor IQ?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287131387' post='3638']

No, TC would not be just for academic exercise of comparing to another lens, but rather for practical purposes.





Well, 2xTCIII has excellent opinion for quality.





Are you saying Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 II has poor IQ?

[/quote]

To me is seems very strange to compare both lenses, they have nothing in common.



On the focus breathing, that goes gradually. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II have an exceptional amount of breathing for its type of lens, it goes down to 135mm at MFD basically. No other lens in this class shows this, except the new Sigma with OS.



The 28-300 shows similar focus breathing to the Tamron 28-300, so again, quite a lot (but that is normal for the type of lens).



With both lenses it will be gradual. So near 200 or 300mm at infinity and then gradually less and less focal length. Photozone does not test this, it is easy for you yourself to test.



About TC's, they all do the same. They crop the center part of the image projected by the lens. So, it does not matter all that much which 2x TC you use, you will see a quite similar loss in resolution from the same lens as you crop its resolving power (or rather, you magnify its resolution-limit).



So saying that it makes more sense to compare it with an 1.4x TC is a sound suggestion. And I did not see him say the 70-200 has poor optical quality.

[hwyhobo]

I am beginning to regret posting...



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1287137335' post='3639']

To me is seems very strange to compare both lenses, they have nothing in common. [/quote]

I explained that in my original post.

On the focus breathing, that goes gradually.

I understand the mechanism. I thought perhaps posting a simplified scale for such lenses as part of the testing might be useful and something users might be interested in.

Photozone does not test this, it is easy for you yourself to test.

Is that why people come to read the tests on the net? Kind of the point of reading a review is not having to buy a lens first.

About TC's, they all do the same.

I am familiar with the concept of TC, yes.

So, it does not matter all that much which 2x TC you use, you will see a quite similar loss in resolution from the same lens as you crop its resolving power

No. Sorry, gotta call it. Optical quality of the TC matters a great deal.

So saying that it makes more sense to compare it with an 1.4x TC is a sound suggestion

Perhaps to him. I am not interested in 1.4.

And I did not see him say the 70-200 has poor optical quality.

Yes, he clearly implied it. I will quote to make it simpler:



[quote name='genotypewriter']

And if you care about IQ, why bother with zooms?[/quote]



And please do not argue with me that he simply meant that primes have better quality than zooms. Firstly, it greatly depends on the optical quality of the individual lens; secondly, he was referring to a specific zoom in the lines just above the material I quoted.



You may look up the tests of this lens on this site and compare to some primes in that range and be surprised by results.



Last but not least, suggesting nonchalantly that if anyone care about IQ one would never buy a zoom is ludicrous. I bit my tongue in my previous answer, but since you have joined in the choir of the same style of posts, I have to say it - read the reviews on this very site. Modern zooms can be of extremely high quality, better in fact than primes of not so many years ago.



Another suggestion that it is "better to get the other lens that doesn't need the TC" is also a revelation to me. Pity my dog ate the $8500 difference yesterday. I will have to chastise him.



Perhaps I should have posted a disclaimer at the top:



* I am 50+

* I have been photographing for the past 40 years, including professionally for a while (many years ago)

* I am not a moron



I guess I will just keep reading the reviews here.

[Rainer]

[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']... Hope to see the Nikon 28-300 reviewed soon ...[/quote]



I wouldn't expect wonders from it. It clearly aims for a different market than the Canon EF 28-300L.

So, read a review of the Tamron 28-300 VC and (within limits) you know what to expect from

the Nikkor. It will likely be a quite nice lens for a one-lens-kit to take on vacations, but for

quality, you will be better off with a 24-70 + 70-200 set.

[mst]

First of all, sorry for the late reply, I have been fighting some health issues recently and haven't had much time to look into the forum. Nonetheless, of course, welcome on board. And please don't hesitate to continue posting.



[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']

I didn't see if there is a schedule of lenses to be reviewed. Hope to see the Nikon 28-300 reviewed soon.[/quote]



There is no official schedule. Of course, there are lenses which we consider to have higher priorities than other ones, but since we all do this in our spare time (with limited resources), we don't commit to a schedule of any sort. Not even a published list of which lens is next.



[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']In anticipation of the review, I would also love to see an unusual comparison - I would love to see the quality of the lens compared to 700-200 f/2.8 II _with the new 2xTCIII_ at their overlapping focal lengths (140-300mm).[/quote]



There won't be a direct comparison, but I will add test results with all current TCs to the review of the 70-200 VR II. However, tests with TCs will only be done at maximum focal length, that's all I can offer.



[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619'] it would be very helpful to have a few simple data points, for instance, at a distance of 50 cm the max focal length is 100 mm, at a distance of 2 m the max focal length is ..., 5 m ..., 20 m .... It would also be nice to know at which distance the lens can become a real 300 mm, assuming it is short of infinity.

[/quote]



Sorry, but I don't see this in the near future.



-- Markus

[Guest]

[quote name='hwyhobo' timestamp='1287000801' post='3619']

Being new to the forum here (although I have read the Photozone reviews for a long time, love them), I didn't see if there is a schedule of lenses to be reviewed. Hope to see the Nikon 28-300 reviewed soon. It looks like a potentially nice hiking lens. In anticipation of the review, I would also love to see an unusual comparison - I would love to see the quality of the lens compared to 700-200 f/2.8 II _with the new 2xTCIII_ at their overlapping focal lengths (140-300mm). I know the cost and weight make them seem like totally different animals, but even more so, I would love to see how much in IQ I give up by going with a smaller, lighter, and cheaper lens.



Also, I understand the issue with magnification and IF mechanism, but it would be very helpful to have a few simple data points, for instance, at a distance of 50 cm the max focal length is 100 mm, at a distance of 2 m the max focal length is ..., 5 m ..., 20 m .... It would also be nice to know at which distance the lens can become a real 300 mm, assuming it is short of infinity.



Thanks for a great site.

[/quote]



All you need to know about the lens including the effective focal length at a given distance is answered here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

YOur conclusion about the opical quality may be differnt than Mr Rockwell's though. But he provides 100% crops and comprisms with other lenses, making it easy for you to evaluate lens perfomance for yourself.

[Guest]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1287411843' post='3672']

All you need to know about the lens including the effective focal length at a given distance is answered here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

YOur conclusion about the opical quality may be differnt than Mr Rockwell's though. But he provides 100% crops and comprisms with other lenses, making it easy for you to evaluate lens perfomance for yourself.

[/quote]