Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens Review



I just upgraded from a D90 to a D750, and I decided to buy a superzoom to use when I don't want to carry around the full bag of primes. It was a tossup between the 24-120 and the 28-300, but in the end I picked the latter since I already had a 24mm f/2.8D which had been collecting dust during my decade of using DX-sized sensors. In fact I might trade the 24mm with a 20mm if the opportunity comes along.

Anyway, there's a lot of controversy surrounding this lens, so I thought I would make some tests to decide whether to keep the lens or not, and since I have them, I figured I'd post them online.

So here they are. The first one are 200x200pixel crops (roughly) from the center of a resolution target. I took every marked focal length, and every full stop of aperture. I put a green dot next to the combinations that I considered satisfactory. For comparison, the "Optimal" square was obtained by taking a photo much larger version of the same pattern and scaling it down to match the 200x200px target. In fact this resolution would be unobtainable even with a perfect lens, due to the Bayer pattern on the sensor throwing away about 30% of the total resolution, so I also added a version of the "Optimal" test target which was reduced by 30% and then upscaled by 30% again. This is the red-bordered scale. To my eye, the 28-300 is sufficiently sharp in the center at most focal lengths and apertures, except wide open beyond at 35mm, and beyond 105mm. There also seems to be a soft spot at f/8  at 105mm.

I don't care so much about sharpness in the very corners, but I do care about the sides. So I then placed the target about 12mm from the center (roughly the edges of the frame on the short side), and reshot all apertures and focal lengths. The situation is quite a bit worse, particularly beyond 70mm. You pretty much need to step down to f/11 to be guaranteed of sharp results, and even that might not help at around 200mm.
As you can see from the side crops, this lens has a LOT of lateral chromatic aberration. Luckily it clear right up in Lightroom, so it isn't so bad of a problem.
The lens also vignettes quite a bit, but the D750 corrects it right in camera, and in any case I tend to ADD vignetting in PP in a lot of photo to draw the eye towards the center. Still if you were looking for a lens to take photos of books or whatever, I guess this isn't your lens.

In terms of usability, the lens does not creep statically (that is pointing it downwards does not change the focal length, but if you have the camera dangling around your neck as you walk around, the bouncing will eventually extend it. Thus, the zoom lock is in fact necessary, and mildly annoying.

The bokeh is pretty horrible. There's bright rings around out of focus highlights. On the other hand there is quite a bit of mechanical vignetting at the tele-end which is something I rather enjoy. See how the out of focus circles in the corners are a little squished? This is sometimes called the cat's eye effect, and it looks like the whole scene is revolving around the center. If you want to have smooth out of focus areas, you'll have to pick your backgrounds carefully.

Flare on the other hand is very well controlled, as the next photo shows.

In sum, I'm very happy with the lens, as a travel/walkabout lens. You can see more photos I took with it during a short trip to Munich here. I'll be traveling soon so I'll update this with my experiences. You can get the lens from Amazon for $946 (as of Dec 16th 2015).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Was any other car company gaming emission standards?

Image
As most of you already know, Volkswagen was recently caught cheating on emission tests. But were they really alone in doing so? The EPA data shows some suspicious patterns. Without getting too technical (in any case, the specifics are still unclear), there's a tradeoff between fuel efficiency, and NOx emissions. So for a given level of performance, the software that controls a modern diesel engine can be tuned so that it is more fuel efficient, but produces more NOx, or it can be tuned so that it is less fuel efficient, but produces less NOx. Since Volkswagen had problems meeting the NOx standards in the US, they decided to introduce software that detected when an emission test was being performed, and tuned the engine so as to decrease NOx production, in the process potentially worsening fuel economy relative to regular driving conditions. One possible outcome of this procedure is that the cars involved might actually have better fuel economy in real life conditions, tha
Read more

What Genghis Khan, but Elizabeth Can't

One of my ongoing research projects is on the Mongol invasions. Doing some background research, I realized there's an interesting asymmetry between male and female rulers, in terms of available imperial sexual strategies. Say that the Mongol hordes have just finished annexing another city along their ever expanding frontier. Let's call it Elbonia . In this case the local elite had the good sense to surrender peacefully, and accept the Mongols as their rightful overlords. Everybody knew that if they put up a fight, the Mongols would typically exterminate a significant proportion of the local population, and enslave the rest. What did the Mongols want from Elbonia? Well first of all, obviously they didn't want the inhabitants to ever attack their other dominions, regardless of any preexisting local feuds which may have existed. Secondly, they wanted them to send them money or tradable goods regularly. And thirdly, they wanted them to furnish soldiers for use in their next
Read more

Why do bands allow scalpers? (Hint: Dynamic Efficiency)

Mankiw recently posted about ticket prices and scalpers, and this reminded me that a while ago I thought of a reason why performers might allow some people to make so much money in their stead. It works more for music groups and football teams, but is more relevant for theater performances. Say you are a music band who has just had a string of hits. You have two options: sell concert tickets for $60, in which case about half of them will go to lucky fans who have been following you since yours early days, and half will go to scalpers who will resell them for $500 to wall street traders that will use them to impress their dates. Or you can sell all of them for $400, and they will all go to wall street types. It seems a no brainer, but what happens if the next album flops? In the first case, the guys that followed the band from the garage days will still go to the concerts to hear the old songs, and maybe your next effort has a better reception. Even if you never have another hit,
Read more