I miss my 18-200mm since switching to FX

[sk66]

So much so that I just bought a Nikkor 28-300mm....
Yes, it' relatively expensive. Yes, it's slow. And yes, it won't have the image quality of a prime. But I don't think I'll care.

With this lens, my 12-24mm and my 2x (stacked) I'll have a relatively small "do it all" kit.

For those times where I need "better", I have it. I already have the 28-80 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 150 f/2.8 macro, 500 f/4.2, and 300-800 f/5.6. ( I also own a 50-500 which I just might sell now)

I have quite a bit of money invested in those lenses and they are all very good for what they do. But they are big, heavy, and somewhat limited. To get close to the same coverage I would have to carry the 12-24, 28-80, 80-200, and 500...not really feasible for general walking around.... and the 28-300 to carry along when I'm out with the 300-800 should be almost perfect....

Some may find it odd that I would post about a "downgrade", but this is the lens I've been waiting for.

I'll update after some experience with it if anyone is interested....

[dcclark]

Absolutely. Convenience is an important factor that you shouldn't ignore! (Of course, it's different for different people, but you've clearly discovered its importance to YOU.)

I think about things like this all the time, since I hike a lot with my gear. It's why I still use a D40 with a new 35mm f/1.8 on it -- it's about the lightest SLR kit I can manage! If I need more, I'll toss my 18-200 on and call it good.

[kirbinster]

Did you just decide "I want the Nikon" or did you consider some of the other brands in that size? If so how do they compare?

[sk66]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Did you just decide "I want the Nikon" or did you consider some of the other brands in that size? If so how do they compare?

The only directly comparable is the Tamron 28-300 which is slower at the long end and doesn't compare favorably in image quality. It's also noisier and slower w/ autofocus.

Next might be the Nikon 70-300 G..not as long a range, slower at the short end, and image quality is very close.

Both cost about 1/2 what the 28-300 cost...either might be a good choice for less. I'd probably choose the Nikkor as you need the aperture more at the long end and it has better image quality...but I would probably miss the 28-70 range....

As long as the results are as good as the reviews/tests indicate, the Nikkor 28-300 was the right choice for me.