How is the image quality on this lense compared to a zoom that includes this focal length like the 28 - 300?
305765
I generally use prime lens so, perhaps, I am not the best person to ask. With this said, the 28 f1.8 is excellent optically. On a D800E, the 100% view is tack sharp (assuming good shooting technique). You print excellent quality 17 16 by 20 or so. I haven't tested beyond that. The rendering is also very good. Hard to believe that the 28 - 300 would be an equal.
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
305767
I had both lenses and sold the 28-300 after I got the 28mm 1.8. No contest at 28mm. Now i use the 70-300 VR for long range and switch to the 28 prime for wide angle. The flexibility in aperature is also huge for me. If you are just shooting snapshots at 28mm for 4x6 or 5x7 prints you won't be able to tell the difference, but if you are shooting for money or larger prints, the 28mm will resolve much higher clarity especially in the corners on FX.
305768
Echo Chao's, additionally this lens has the Nano coating and its very fast, making it a great option for FX users. I use mine a lot and really enjoy the pictures taken with it.
305769
The prime will be significantly sharper with less barrel distortion, faster autofocus and better performance in low light.
305770
The image quality (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) of this 28mm prime is vastly superior to that of the 28-300mm. Primes are going to beat zooms 9 times out of 10 when it comes to IQ anyway, but even moreso when compared to a super-zoom like the 28-300mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 would be a closer competitor, but still falls short when solely comparing IQ.For reference, I own both the 28mm and the 24-70mm, and have used the 28-300mm a handful of times.
305771
Image quality if very good and exceeds any other zoom I have at 28mm... but primes will generally outperform zooms at their given lengths. Also, the 28-300 shows significant distortion with edge softness at 28mm and will not perform well in low light, whereas the 28 1.8 is strong on both fronts. The 28 1.8 produces good and completely usable images at 1.8 and razor sharp images starting at 2.8 from my experience.
305772
The Image Quality of this lens is phenomenal. My Key Points that makes this lens Better than the 28-300:-Razor Sharp-Compact/light weight-1.8/f aperture for indoor photography-Having it a prime isn't as versatile, but creates a creative atmosphere for you to be challenged. -Good for Group shots, as well as portraits-Did I mention it has a GOLD RING on it? :D-Little distortion, but what do you expect from anything under 35mm-It is my to-go travel lens because I am most likely going to take scenic pictures and not birds-Shallow depth of field and the bokeh is awesome! with little natural Vignetting, I think it is a bit pleasing. The Image Quality of this lens is phenomenal. My Key Points that makes this lens Better than the 28-300:-Razor Sharp-Compact/light weight-1.8/f aperture for indoor photography-Having it a prime isn't as versatile, but creates a creative atmosphere for you to be challenged. -Good for Group shots, as well as portraits-Did I mention it has a GOLD RING on it? :D-Little distortion, but what do you expect from anything under 35mm-It is my to-go travel lens because I am most likely going to take scenic pictures and not birds-Shallow depth of... » Read More The Image Quality of this lens is phenomenal. My Key Points that makes this lens Better than the 28-300:-Razor Sharp-Compact/light weight-1.8/f aperture for indoor photography-Having it a prime isn't as versatile, but creates a creative atmosphere for you to be challenged. -Good for Group shots, as well as portraits-Did I mention it has a GOLD RING on it? :D-Little distortion, but what do you expect from anything under 35mm-It is my to-go travel lens because I am most likely going to take scenic pictures and not birds-Shallow depth of field and the bokeh is awesome! with little natural Vignetting, I think it is a bit pleasing. « Show Less
1380192
Partially in response to Paula J's answer below, I have had both lenses. The 70-300L is actually sharper in the center than the fixed 300L prime. The 300L prime is sharper on the edges and corners. If you want the F4 aperture at 300mm, then you have to go with the prime. If you don't need this, then newer 70-300L. It is lighter, more compact, has a better image stabilizer and gives you the versatility of a zoom.
1966950
I haven't tried the 28mm, but I can see it costs about $100 more than the Sigma. I just bought the Siggy and I love it. I have not had any focus issues and it is quite sharp wide open for my purposes (low-light indoor shots of food and people).
2059520
Its maximum aperture at 300mm focal distance is f/6.3 and that's because you'd be buying it for the 300mm telephoto zoom capability. At 18mm zoom, you get a maximum aperture of f/3.5, which isn't all that great. So you have to remember that you're trading off something against something else.If you want to shoot in low light, you up the ISO to 3200 or more if your camera has that capability.
1898464
I use a 70-300 Sigma. It will work but on manual you can zoom all the way and focus yourself. If your on auto focus it will work only till about 200 mm then it won't focus anymore. But this is what happens with this lens. Can say for sure if it will on any other. As for picture quality I did notice a fair difference. Not very clear when zoomed all the way. But need to try with a tripod. I got it for my birding and does not work well for that for me.
1413083
If you want an all-purpose lens, get the cheap 18-200mm. The 28-300mm is just not a very good lens when you consider the price and weight and image quality. For that money, you could buy two very good lenses.
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck
2279391
I would compare it to my smaller camera as a 10x zoom for the really good zoom go up to the next lens, I loved my photos at the Grand Canyon, Walking around I used the 30-110 and to zoom in on the river aprox 1 mile below I used my bigger lens 110-220, I like the polarize filter, It is great for outdoors, no glare and crisper color, email if you need more details
1490177
I also have a Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma) that is highly rated, I find this lens to compare favorably and being much smaller much easier to get steady & sharp hand-hel results at 300mm. Took photos at a band concert a week ago (indoors) and was impressed that I could read the type on name tags music stand from a distance. Basically a very sharp lens for the money. I highly recommend.
1199562
Looks about 8" at 16mm and 4" at 300mm. Loving the lens so far BTW had been using the Canon 18-200EFS and the Tamron is WAY faster focusing with my 60D.
1170784
I have the same dilemna. However, I am currently thinking that the 28-135mm is better suited on the basis that it is USM and therefore quicker to focus. I've had non-USM lenses before which tend to aimlessly go back and forth trying to focus when shooting in normal to low light. Since you have an APS-C rather than full frame camera, the 28-135 is equivalent to a 45mm-216mm which to me is enough zoom since I am not into sport photography. Hope this helps
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
386247
The actual lens is 15.1 - 60.4 mm but the sensor is not a full frame 35 mm camera. The equivalent 4x zoom on a 35 mm camera would be 28 - 112 mm.The lens specs are nothing spectacular, but it is a very good lens. The huge sensor gives SLR-like images.
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
464801
18-300 is a DX lens, so like Kevin Brown said, it will crop to around 10 MP instead of full resolution 24 MP. Did you mean 28-300 lens? The 28-300 is an FX lens and will me much better suited to this camera. Amazon has a kit with 28-300.
1316306
I have no idea. The 70-300 gives me access to short range subjects and my grandson has used it for senior pictures. The L lens is the best I believe.