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) - 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... |