Rosaroger
Member
Many thanks, I will at a later stage consider replacing the 200-500 for the 180-600. I will keep the Nikon d850 , I love it, and use it as you do, thanks again.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nikon 24-120 and Nikon 28-300
- Thread starter Rosaroger
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
O
Well-known member
The copies vary with most lenses, the higher end lenses as well but to a less degree or margin.Might have been a bad copy. The lens is highly regarded by Ken Rockwell and numerous working photographers.
View attachment 108914
The internals of the 28-300 is the same design inside as the18-200 DX. The 18-200 DX lens is a kit lens. Is this good or bad ?
I am very happy with my 28-300, however Nikon has done well to build a 24-120 to suit the 100-400.
Only an opinion.
I'm a fan of the 28-300, the 24-200 and 28-400 lenses in F/Z for the versatility. For travel with all the random shot opportunities that come up it's really nice having a Swiss army knife of a lens on the camera. I think any of them are plenty sharp enough for anything.
Walking around my work building which has walls covered in landscape photo's, all about 20x30 in size I can't help but notice the prints just reduce any sharpness gains that a super expensive lens/ super sharp would have had and always makes me wonder why obsess over small differences in lens sharpness if the output medium is most likely going to destroy it anyway, be it 8mp and under screens or print that always seems to be less resolution when I see them than you would at 1:1 on a monitor.
Composition and creatively is always greater than differences in lens sharpness for me. Some of my absolute favorite shots have been taken on $100, $150 lenses on OM cameras that happened to be with me because they're effortless to carry around. I just had a shot of a Joshua Tree yesterday on a $225 TT Artisan 50mm 1.4 that I really like, that lens is more than enough for sharpness.
That's how I see the 28-300, it's ready for whatever, same with the 28-400, either a D850 or Z8 is going to do really well and honestly if you side by side all the images on 4k or less screens or print I highly doubt anyone would see the difference, same for the 24-120z.
So I would pick the one that has the focal length you're after and not look back, it'll work great on whatever you shoot, composition and creativity will always blow away any small differences in lens sharpness for the impact of a good photo and rarely detract enough from one for anyone to notice. We live in a time where there really are very few if any bad lenses on the market.
Walking around my work building which has walls covered in landscape photo's, all about 20x30 in size I can't help but notice the prints just reduce any sharpness gains that a super expensive lens/ super sharp would have had and always makes me wonder why obsess over small differences in lens sharpness if the output medium is most likely going to destroy it anyway, be it 8mp and under screens or print that always seems to be less resolution when I see them than you would at 1:1 on a monitor.
Composition and creatively is always greater than differences in lens sharpness for me. Some of my absolute favorite shots have been taken on $100, $150 lenses on OM cameras that happened to be with me because they're effortless to carry around. I just had a shot of a Joshua Tree yesterday on a $225 TT Artisan 50mm 1.4 that I really like, that lens is more than enough for sharpness.
That's how I see the 28-300, it's ready for whatever, same with the 28-400, either a D850 or Z8 is going to do really well and honestly if you side by side all the images on 4k or less screens or print I highly doubt anyone would see the difference, same for the 24-120z.
So I would pick the one that has the focal length you're after and not look back, it'll work great on whatever you shoot, composition and creativity will always blow away any small differences in lens sharpness for the impact of a good photo and rarely detract enough from one for anyone to notice. We live in a time where there really are very few if any bad lenses on the market.
O
Well-known member
Fantastically summed up, 100%, you are describing my thoughts, feelings, sentiment perfectly.I'm a fan of the 28-300, the 24-200 and 28-400 lenses in F/Z for the versatility. For travel with all the random shot opportunities that come up it's really nice having a Swiss army knife of a lens on the camera. I think any of them are plenty sharp enough for anything.
Walking around my work building which has walls covered in landscape photo's, all about 20x30 in size I can't help but notice the prints just reduce any sharpness gains that a super expensive lens/ super sharp would have had and always makes me wonder why obsess over small differences in lens sharpness if the output medium is most likely going to destroy it anyway, be it 8mp and under screens or print that always seems to be less resolution when I see them than you would at 1:1 on a monitor.
Composition and creatively is always greater than differences in lens sharpness for me. Some of my absolute favorite shots have been taken on $100, $150 lenses on OM cameras that happened to be with me because they're effortless to carry around. I just had a shot of a Joshua Tree yesterday on a $225 TT Artisan 50mm 1.4 that I really like, that lens is more than enough for sharpness.
That's how I see the 28-300, it's ready for whatever, same with the 28-400, either a D850 or Z8 is going to do really well and honestly if you side by side all the images on 4k or less screens or print I highly doubt anyone would see the difference, same for the 24-120z.
So I would pick the one that has the focal length you're after and not look back, it'll work great on whatever you shoot, composition and creativity will always blow away any small differences in lens sharpness for the impact of a good photo and rarely detract enough from one for anyone to notice. We live in a time where there really are very few if any bad lenses on the market.
I see cameras and lenses as nothing but tools using a combination of time light and speed.
95% of the outcome comes from the user.
In the end result most viewers wouldn't know what CA or slight distortion slight noise looked like, they connect with the story the moment.
Only an opinion