[mst]

I can already hear the whining ...



The Nikkor 28-300 VR offers a MFD of just 50cm thoughout the whole focal range. 300mm at 0.5m, wow <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Anybody expecting to be able to use it as a macro should carefully check the maximum magnification: 0.32x. Being a IF lens, the Nikkor dramatically increases the angle of view upon closer focus.



So, it offers roughly the same maximum magnification at 300mm as the AF-S 300/4 does at three times the (minimum) focus distance.



Anybody who followed the endless discussions about this "issue" when the 70-200 VR II was announced can certainly look forward to more of this now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[Rainer]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1282210592' post='1912']

The Nikkor 28-300 VR offers a MFD of just 50cm thoughout the whole focal range. 300mm at 0.5m, wow <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Anybody expecting to be able to use it as a macro should carefully check the maximum magnification: 0.32x. Being a IF lens, the Nikkor dramatically increases the angle of view upon closer focus.

[/quote]



Well, 300mm (at infinity) and 0.32x at 50cm roughly calculates to a focal length of 92mm at MFD ...

so "dramatically" could have been written even in capital letters.

[Klaus]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1282210592' post='1912']

I can already hear the whining ...



The Nikkor 28-300 VR offers a MFD of just 50cm thoughout the whole focal range. 300mm at 0.5m, wow <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Anybody expecting to be able to use it as a macro should carefully check the maximum magnification: 0.32x. Being a IF lens, the Nikkor dramatically increases the angle of view upon closer focus.



So, it offers roughly the same maximum magnification at 300mm as the AF-S 300/4 does at three times the (minimum) focus distance.



Anybody who followed the endless discussions about this "issue" when the 70-200 VR II was announced can certainly look forward to more of this now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[/quote]



Well, I think nobody expects a "perfect" 28-300mm. Let's hope that it is "decent enough".

[Guest]

Actually I am very surprised by its compactness.



When we look at the figures both Canon and Nikon versions "seem" identical.

But the nikon version is half the size.

That makes it portable while the Canon isn't.



It will be a best seller for sure.

Let's wait for the labs tests.

[mst]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1282215706' post='1915']

Well, I think nobody expects a "perfect" 28-300mm. Let's hope that it is "decent enough".

[/quote]



Sure. I'm just afraid that many simply won't unerstand the issue and use it for senseless Nikon bashing, like that they try to fool and rip off their customers, did this on purpose or whatever ... like it happened with the 70-200 VR II.



Actually, I think it's a nice feature to be able focus that close, even if it only gives the equivalent of a 90 mm lens. And of course it won't rival a dedicated macro lens in sharpness (probably far from it).



Looking forward to review the lens, even though it will be a lot of work <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1282216973' post='1918']

Sure. I'm just afraid that many simply won't unerstand the issue and use it for senseless Nikon bashing, like that they try to fool and rip off their customers, did this on purpose or whatever ... like it happened with the 70-200 VR II.



Actually, I think it's a nice feature to be able focus that close, even if it only gives the equivalent of a 90 mm lens. And of course it won't rival a dedicated macro lens in sharpness (probably far from it).



-- Markus

[/quote]

I am not sure why you would prefer to have to focus at 0.5m to get what other lenses do at further distances...

Nikon 28-300mm: 0.32x @ 0.5m

Canon 70-300mm: 0.25x @ 1.5m

Canon 55-250mm: 0.31x @ 1.1m

Nikon 70-300mm VR: 0.25x @ 1.5m

Sigma 70-300mm DG Macro: 0.5x @ 0.95m



I guess Nikon is basically copying the design from the Tamron 28-300mm VC (0.35x @ 0.49m)



When I use a long focal length to get something up close I do that because of the distance to the subject, and the field of view. To me, what you are saying about the "nice feature" makes little sense, as you lose BOTH!



If I wanted to use 90mm, I would just use a 90mm lens, don't you agree?



To illustrate the field of view aspect of longer focal lengths:









That is all at 200mm, at magnifications close or upto 0.28x. 90mm just does not look the same.

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282218662' post='1920']If I wanted to use 90mm, I would just use a 90mm lens, don't you agree?

[/quote]



IF you carry a 90mm lens, yes. But the 28-300 VR is certainly a one lens solution for many, which they use because they do not want to carry another lens, be it 90mm or 70-300 or whatever ...



It's an added bonus of the 28-300, not it's main purpose, of course.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1282224937' post='1923']

IF you carry a 90mm lens, yes. But the 28-300 VR is certainly a one lens solution for many, which they use because they do not want to carry another lens, be it 90mm or 70-300 or whatever ...

[/quote]

That is twisting it around though, Marcus. Point is: you do not have 300mm, instead you have 90mm.

Fancy carrying around an extra 300mm lens then?



That it loses so much in the "long" end at closer focus distance really can not be seen as a plus point...

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1282224937' post='1923']

It's an added bonus of the 28-300, not it's main purpose, of course.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Having 1:2 macro at 300mm with the Sigma 70-300 APO macro , that I can certainly call a plus point. However, 1:3 for a xx-300mm zoom is not very remarkable.



The Nikon is heavy too, by the way. Where the Tamron saves weight with its f6.3 at 300mm and its XR build/design (555g), the Nikon weighs in with a healthy 800g.



That is the same as my 70-200mm f4 L USM with an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS. Of course, the Nikon does win in length storage space there.



I know I would not want one of these 28-300mm ultra zoom consumer designs... it is all compromise without actual benefit <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[popo]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282226413' post='1926']

I know I would not want one of these 28-300mm ultra zoom consumer designs... it is all compromise without actual benefit <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

I'm with Markus on this. You buy a 28-300 if you want one lens for everything, at least regarding range. That is the benefit. Many times with a superzoom I could be taking a landscape shot then picking off a single bird in it. If I had to switch lenses, the bird could be miles away. It's that or 2 cameras! Trading convenience and total size against quality. Any "macro" ability is a bonus - you'll be after the magnification and not the entire FoV or working distance effects at this level.



The new Nikon is no budget lens either, even if it isn't as bad as the Canons. Assuming its optical quality is related to its price compared to the competition, it should be "good enough" to consider.

[Guest]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1282216973' post='1918']

Sure. I'm just afraid that many simply won't unerstand the issue and use it for senseless Nikon bashing, like that they try to fool and rip off their customers, did this on purpose or whatever ... like it happened with the 70-200 VR II.



-- Markus

[/quote]



Hope you didnt think of me "bashing" when I asked for this behaviour to be pointed out in the 70-200 VRII test. I think the extreme shortening of the focal length at close distance, which results in a low max magnification, is an important fact to consider when buying a lens.It certainly is no reason for discounting the lens as such or Nikon as a company.



Let me explain the importance of the max magnification by the example of the recently released Canon 70-300 L lens. at 300 mm this lens has the same max magnification as the 70-200 F/4 IS at 200mm. Since I am shooting mostly tightly framed portraits at close to medium distances with the latter lens, "upgrading" to the new 70-300 L would be useless for me as would not benefit from the longer focal length.

Likewise a Nikon user might rather get the 70-300VR plus a normal zoom instead of this superzoom, simply for benefitting from a higher max magnification. Photographers who use the tele end mostly to shoot long ditances subjects, may however prefer the supperzoom instead, because its limitation are not important for them.