A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Nikon Lenses and Optics > New - Nikon 28-300mm vs old...

New - Nikon 28-300mm vs old 70-300mm

Lean van Biljon , Aug 21, 2010; 04:54 a.m.

Can someone perhaps tell me is the 28-300mm will replace the older 70-300mm.
I think the 28-300mm will cover a bigger range in mm, but will the picture quality be better than the 70-300mm.
Do any body know of such comparison between the two?


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Arthur Richardson , Aug 21, 2010; 05:31 a.m.

I don't think so. It is a different lens with a different audience. I would buy the 70-300 for lack of funds for a 70-200, but would not even consider a 10X zoom lens. To many compromises IMHO.
I expect the quality of the 70-300 to be far superior to the 28-300.

Frank Skomial , Aug 21, 2010; 06:19 a.m.

If the 28-200 part of the 28-300 lens is as good or better than the old Nikkor 28-200 G lens, then the 28-300 lens could be superior to the current 70-300 VR lens. After all it costs about 2X more.

Paul Nance , Aug 21, 2010; 07:07 a.m.

I think its safe to say the new 70-300 VRII replaces all past versions of the 70-300 lens (of which there are several, and none VR). It is heavier, longer and fantastic.

John Crowe , Aug 21, 2010; 09:40 a.m.

No, it will not replace the 70-300, and no it will not be superior to the 70-300. The reason it costs so much is the ridiculous zoom range. This lens will be very similar to the ones Canon has been making for quite a few years now. They started with a 35-300 then replaced it with a 28-300 a few years ago.

All these superzooms offer mediocre quality in a convenient, but huge, all in one lens.

Frank Skomial , Aug 21, 2010; 09:57 a.m.

While the 70-300 VR is a good lens, especially on the tripod and stopped down, or at shutters 1/500 or faster, it is in the same category of "mediocre" lenses as described by John the Canon lenses.

It does not measure up to 300/4, 180/2.8 or even to 70-200 VR lenses.

It should be easy for Nikon to make a better lens over this 70-300 VR lens, especially if it costs that much. Pretty soon we will know.

Asking this question now is premature.

Peter Hamm , Aug 21, 2010; 10:00 a.m.

The MTFs on the 28-300 are not promising.

Benjamin Majcen , Aug 21, 2010; 11:37 a.m.

The new 28-300 could be the one lens solution for traveling for all FX users who are now using the 70-300VR as a lightweight traveling replacement for their 70-200/2.8VR beasts. In the past we needed an additional wide angle to standard zoom.
In my opinion the main advantage of the new 28-300 over the 70-300 is its versatility and not its IQ.

Michael Kohan , Aug 21, 2010; 12:49 p.m.

My 70-300mm VR lens is excellent and I would never categorize it as mediocre, not for a second. My copy is as sharp as any f2.8 lens I've ever used all the way out to 300mm. But it is limited by the aperture of 4.5-5.6 in lower light situations, not it's quality.

Al Sandberg , Aug 21, 2010; 01:13 p.m.

I would agree with Michael rather than the assessment made by "John the Cannon" person which is quoted by Frank. My experience mimics that of Michael, even his comment on how sharp the lens is at 300mm. A professional critic has stated that the lens is not sharp at 300mm so perhaps the difference in opinions is more about individual copies rather than the design. My copy of the 70-300mm VR is as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR (original version and not the VR II which is I do not own). Dealing in absolutes is difficult. It would be helpful if the ciritcs that we read had the ability to test multiple copies of the same product rather than base their opinion on just one sample. That way defects and copies that were sub-standard and not up to manufacturer's specs could be detected and eliminated from the assessment.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses