Why are there always people who are bashing these all-purpose lenses in comments? Do they not realise that different people have different needs? These lenses are for people like me. I love photographing critters of all size and shapes and these multipurpose lenses are the only lenses that give me that range. A little wasp a meter away? An eagle soaring in the sky? Portraits of my daughter? This gets the job done. It does nothing perfectly, but it does give me shots which I'll miss if I was changing three lenses. These lenses are also super useful for journalists. There are plenty of people like me who would instantly buy this
I'm with you bro. Not everybody could afford those high profile f2.8, f1.2 lenses. This lens is a good compromise for price and reach. Even at 400, the image is pretty good and quite good at close up's too. Nikon really studied the market well. They do think of middle income people like me
Because the toxic photography community has been slandering against super zoom lenses and the majority of photographers are too stubborn to think on their own. Getting the shot is way more important than edge sharpness or bokeh.
I have been using a nikkor 28-300mm ED for the past 4 years and there are absolutely no complaints. It is one of those "fix it, forget it" lenses. Of course, idiots like jared polin will hate it because it does not cost $5000.
I'm 100% with you. So far, I've picked up that the photographer community can be as toxic as the vinyl community. it really is the whole 'If it's not "break the bank" expensive/a certain make, don't buy it' type of thing, which is a stupid mentality to have, because they probably think money grows on trees and that no one has a budget. It really is a matter of finding out for yourself - like you have - whether or not the lens is for you, and that can be through showcases or reviews like this one. This lens is also for me because of its range, versatility and size. The only thing holding me back is I've also considered the 180-600 for wildlife shoots, again because of its range, but it's just a huge lens haha
That photo with the swans front and back was so good. Thanks for the summary - the minimum focus is really exciting,hope I get to try this one sometime soon.
I've only had mine for a couple of days, and used it yesterday for the first time at a Tudor reenactment event. Overall I was pretty pleased with it, as it let me get some shots which otherwise I'd have lost. It's not perfect, but a great lens to take if you can only take one.
Hi Seth, what a lens ive been waiting for this one to come along for years to replace the 28-300mm the extra 100mm takes it to another level, i travel with my work and i can be away for months at a time so i like to take as much equipment as i can in one Lowepro bag. Since Nikons revolution with mirrorless i can now get as much gear in my bag as i could with the Fuji X system and that is saying something (no more Fuji). One lens that covers everything, i shoot full frame and will buy this lens from Grays of Westminster, For anyone starting out with a body and a prime this would be a recommendation for a second lens.
Seth; Thanks for a great review of this new lens. Have a crazy question for you. With a Zf and this new lens how do you think doing sports, Lacrosse or football, would be or will the Z 6 or Z 6Ii be a better camera for that. Thanks for everything you do for our community and thanks for doing it for free.
I’ll say the ZF while it’s not a body style for sports etc ergonomically and def is different aesthetic as an interface the processor and the autofocus make it great for action. I do think we will see that processor and performance more and more and the Z series sees updates to new bodies across the line we will have to see
Optically this doesn't even look that bad. Two lens travel kit could easily just be this and a 17-28. Definite park walk around lens for anybody, Good first lens, good kit lens, probably outdoes the 24-200. This honestly seems like a very solid lens. It's definitely an "outdoor" lens, but you can't exactly get "reach," "compact" and "fast" in the same sentence.
I am always impressed with your honest reviews and those shots were pretty awesome. If I was to get a z-8 body would this be the lens to get a good start familiarizing myself with mirrorless? I currently shoot D850 and D810 with the Nikon holy trinity plus several primes for lens choices and really struggle with the total change over idea but things are evolving. Generally shoot landscapes, HS sports, and events like conventions. Totally respect your opinions if you get a chance to answer
(Laughing) Seth ... we need to get you out to Colorado so you can do some Wildlife Photography there for your testing purposes. (Laughing) RMNP (Rocky Mountain National Park) or the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in the Denver area are AWESOME locations to do both Landscape and Wildlife photography. Well ... Colorado itself is a Landscape Photographers dream. It's impossible now to ask John Fielder, but he lived in Colorado (mostly Estes Park) for over 60 years and published what ... 45 books on Colorado Landscape. Yep. Need to get you out of the Big City Buddy. (Maniacal Laughter)
If a 24mm I would BUY IT,, Most of this type of lens misses on one end of the range or the other... I am sure that it will come out when there is more time and in depth.... Thanks Seth !! Maybe You will become a Wildlife Photog (Some Great Pix) :) :) :)
Makes me wonder (especially now that we have a competing 28-75 from Tamron, that competes with the NIkon 28-75) if we will see something similar from Tamron, like maybe a 28-300 instead of what we have here, but perhaps with improved optics? (Yes I know that the 28-75's are both likely made by Tamron and the NIkon version just has NIkon's name on it, but Tamron likely makes it).
I wish it was the original rumored aperture range (3.5-6.3) personally, BUT I get why Nikon went with the F4-8. They couldn't undercut their already established Z 24-200. I kinda wish they collabed with Tamron again & did the 28-200/2.8-5.6 bc THAT was a lens I was interested in for hiking/backpacking...but I'll wait for more in-depth reviews & maybe I will end up with this 28-400 instead.
I'm thinking this would go well with a z50 for me. 42mm would be wide enough for me a lot of the time and I'd definitely use 600mm a lot. But then I'm wondering, should i just use my bridge camera if i need all in one that day.
While it is slightly there I found the breathing to be pretty suppressed honestly I think my buddy Matt Irwin’s video has a clip showing it if you wanna check it out
Can anyone here offer me some freelance works? I really need a storage solution to back things up and it will help me to get a Zf and this lens and 14-30mm f4 too one day?
this is typical of Nikon's marketing and I don't believe the glass is better when you compare it to the 80-400mm AF/S VR F LENS lots of young buyers are getting sucked into New Z lens. Nikons happy but I wouldn't fall for it JMHO
.. not even close to the same lens and it’s about a grand lower in price because it was designed to be as such. No on told me what to say I gave the examples from the lens so please don’t allude to some shady motives here feels a little rude JMHO
With better ISO performance in modern cameras, it has not been that big of a problem. Modern mirrorless get good shots even at ISO 6400 , which was unthinkable 10 years ago. Indoor sports is one thing this would absolutely suck at.
