NIKON 70-300 70mm f8
I did a small experiment comparing the Nikon 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 with my new lens Nikon 28-300 VR f3.2-5.6. My findings where very interesting: first the 28-300VR is much "shorter Focal Length" when focusing on shorter distances compared to the 70-300, this phenomena is well documented but is interesting to compare it for real. When focussing at or near infinity the 28-300 appears to become in fact the indicated Focal Length of 200 or 300mm. Sharpness is where things get tricky , In the end I can say that wide open the 70-300 is somewhat sharper and a bit contrasty than the 28-300 when looking at the pixel level of amplification, however, this sharpness is less apparent when looking at the full image.
The question is: Is it worth to keep the 70-300 while having the 28-300? well that depends on each photographer and its willingness to carry more and heavier lens around, to me, it looks like the 28-300 can get the job done as I don't see myself carrying the extra weight of the 70-300, I rather save my money and get a 70-200 f2.8 (being a Tamron VC or the First VR generation from Nikon) when I really need a sharper telephoto zoom lens. Feel free to look at the images and arrive at your own conclusions. While there is more to a lens than sharpness (focus speed and accuracy, ergonomics etc) this 28-300 is a fantastic lens, yes is compromise, but a very good one in my humble opinion.
These where Fine JPEGs straight out from the camera (same white balance and process no sharpening in light room) except for the shots that where taken outside, taken on a tripod with the VR off to avoid estrange behavior.
NIKON 70-300 70mm f8
I did a small experiment comparing the Nikon 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 with my new lens Nikon 28-300 VR f3.2-5.6. My findings where very interesting: first the 28-300VR is much "shorter Focal Length" when focusing on shorter distances compared to the 70-300, this phenomena is well documented but is interesting to compare it for real. When focussing at or near infinity the 28-300 appears to become in fact the indicated Focal Length of 200 or 300mm. Sharpness is where things get tricky , In the end I can say that wide open the 70-300 is somewhat sharper and a bit contrasty than the 28-300 when looking at the pixel level of amplification, however, this sharpness is less apparent when looking at the full image.
The question is: Is it worth to keep the 70-300 while having the 28-300? well that depends on each photographer and its willingness to carry more and heavier lens around, to me, it looks like the 28-300 can get the job done as I don't see myself carrying the extra weight of the 70-300, I rather save my money and get a 70-200 f2.8 (being a Tamron VC or the First VR generation from Nikon) when I really need a sharper telephoto zoom lens. Feel free to look at the images and arrive at your own conclusions. While there is more to a lens than sharpness (focus speed and accuracy, ergonomics etc) this 28-300 is a fantastic lens, yes is compromise, but a very good one in my humble opinion.
These where Fine JPEGs straight out from the camera (same white balance and process no sharpening in light room) except for the shots that where taken outside, taken on a tripod with the VR off to avoid estrange behavior.