08-19-2010, 02:00 PM
[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='
' />
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='
' />