Nikon 28-300VR good enough for travel lens

[pchengws]

Hello, I am going to Japan in Early April for the cherry blossom viewing. Obviously I would like to take good photos to show off. I am going to retire and travel round with my wife. I do not think we can afford to return for another same occassion visit.

From the signature you can see what equipment I have. To cover Mt. Fuji and I understand some place I need the long tele to zoom in to the object. I read alot of review seems like Nikon 70-200 VR is the best choice. (I have plan to upgrade into FF body so prefer FX lenses.) However not so much the money but the weight I can not carry more heavy lenses to travel. So the sales persons some advise me 70-300VR lighter and equally sharp as compare with 70-200VR. Some say go for 28-300VR and I no need to carry the 24-70 also. I can travel light and comfortable. I badly need some one with the 28-300VR and 24-70 experience to advise me that 28-300 has equally good 24-70 range sharpness or close enough IQ or nowhere near it. So to decide should I bring along the heavy 24-70 lens if go with 28-300.

Between the 70-300VR and 28-300VR which lens should I buy for my coming and future trips and I will not regret the photos turn out not as ideal. I am a self proclaim advance hobbist.

Thank you.

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day pchen

I travel 40,000 kilometers each year
My main lens is a 28-300 (12x zoom) and it gets a heavy workout
I find that the optical quality is well good enough for everything I do - my max print size for household use is 30cm x 45cm [12" x 18" ] and it all comes up very nicely

For travelling, size & weight of equipment becomes very important, also speed of shooting without worrying about changing lenses, dust on the sensor etc etc

Hope this helps a bit
Regards, Phil

[pchengws]

Hi Phil,

Thank you for the confirmation on the 28-300 VR lens. Yes, weight is important to me too but IQ also important. After the days of travel sit back what we like to see are clear and nice color photos present on the screen.

I was 80% set on the 28-300 but some are telling me better off to buy the 70-300. That prompt my question. Now I think it is 90% now. By end of next week I must decide and buy, so enough time for me to practise before I set out for the trip with my wife.

Thanks again.

Peter

[deadshot]

No doubt you know that there are lens review sites out there where you can compare the two lenses.
My understanding is that the greater the difference between the shortest and longest end of the zoom the worse the quality will be, (think 18-400mm??) having said that I think my 18-200 VR is excellent. If I wanted 400mm reach I would probably go 70-400mm or a 400mm prime if I could afford it..

[deadshot]

I've just found this review for you
http://thephototourist.com/2010/09/r...00mm-lens.html this guy is comparing the short end with the 24-70mm.

[pchengws]

Thank you deadshot. The link is definitely a clear encouragement for me to go light with the 28-300mm and is a VR lens. The unfortunate news now is that Japan is having very strong earth Quake and we are not sure the tour will set off.

Now, 90% on the 28-300 and 10% to buy the 70-300 if we are to continue with the tour on April 2nd. 70-200VR is the lens I love to have but just too crazy heavy and my rheumathoid body don't think can carry 24-70 and 70-200 plus other equipment to enjoy the cherry blossom in Japan.

Cheers,

Peter

[deadshot]

Originally Posted by pchengws

Thank you deadshot. The link is definitely a clear encouragement for me to go light with the 28-300mm and is a VR lens. The unfortunate news now is that Japan is having very strong earth Quake and we are not sure the tour will set off.

Now, 90% on the 28-300 and 10% to buy the 70-300 if we are to continue with the tour on April 2nd. 70-200VR is the lens I love to have but just too crazy heavy and my rheumathoid body don't think can carry 24-70 and 70-200 plus other equipment to enjoy the cherry blossom in Japan.

Cheers,

Peter

You and I have the same problems it seems, I'm 75 now and went for the 18-200mm as soon as it was released to save weight and have never regretted it.
The officianados state that a bag full of prime lenses are better and are right but not for me.
To be honest at A4 which is as large as I go and on my 42 inch TV screen via a flash drive my pics look great .OK a side by side comparison with a prime lens might reveal a difference but thats not the case for me.
So go for it and enjoy it, your friends and family will be impressed I'm sure.
I hope your holiday works out, best wishes.

[deadshot]

Hello Peter,
After I had finished my previous post I went downstairs for my lunch and turned on the TV.
This Tsunami ! wow!! ,I think you are lucky that you weren't already over in Japan.

[Wingman]

I own a 70-200 f/2.8VR and give it an A++ rating. However, it is a big and heavy bugger! For all my travel needs (i..e walk around), I purchased a Tamron 18-270 VR. It is small, light and very economically priced (more so now that Tamron has come out with an even smaller 18-270 with a PZ drive). I set it on f8 and it produces excellent results on my D90.

[vIZnquest]

I have the older 18-270mm VC from Tamron. I like it wider so it was an easy choice. Going to 270 vs. 300 was not going to make that much of a difference.