[Steinar1]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300104274' post='6743']

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):

[url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon28-300f35-56g/ff/tloader.htm"]http://www.slrgear.c.../ff/tloader.htm[/url]



Compared to 18-200:

[url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon18-200f35-56vr2/tloader.htm"]http://www.slrgear.c...vr2/tloader.htm[/url]



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).

[/quote]



This only makes sense if you show the results of the 18-200 on a FF camera. Again, this guy does not have an APC and showing him results of lenses tested with an APC becomes irrelevant. And frankly, the 18-200 is no champion, even on an APC!!