Nikon 28-300 Review

Check Latest Lens Prices

The Nikon 28-300mm is a must have lens!

The Nikon 28-300 Lens

This is just a placeholder for my upcoming review. But in the meantime, people always ask, why did you buy it? Here are my quick answers:

  • It is full frame, and not like the unfortunately cropped DX 18-200 lens
  • I shoot so many daytime / sunrise / sunset landscapes — the range of this lens from 28-300 is amazing
  • I really dislike changing lenses all the time.  This should do everything that 2-4 of my old lenses used to do… and no need to swap all the time!
  • This saves me space in my bag.  This one lens now will replace my 28-70 and my 70-200.  That’s pretty amazing!
  • Some photo-snobs complain about the sharpness of the lens. I don’t see it so much. For example, look at my shot of San Francisco below… plenty sharp for me!
  • Note this lens is particularly ideal for me because I shoot on a tripod a lot, which means I don’t care if the f-stop is not so great. Handheld is fine in the daytime, but at night, you’ll really need a tripod for a clean photo.

Interim Field Tests (pending the full review)

So far, the lens has been incredible. I use this plus my 14-24 quite a bit. It has been very solid, focused extremely fast, and the flexibility is incredible.  In fact, it’s so flexible, I’m still getting used to it…  I keep saying to myself, “I forgot I could zoom in so far!”

Nikon 28-300 Lens Photo Examples

Below are some sample photos from the lens… I’ll add more as time goes on!

Nikon 28-300 Review

Above:  The Most Beautiful Road in the World (Queenstown to Glenorchy) — Shutter 1/30; f/5.6; 44mm; ISO 100

Magical Fog in San Francisco over the Golden Gate BridgeI recently drove across the bridge and up this little mountain road to try to find this shot. I started driving up a road I knew well, but it was closed. Closed! So I parked, got out my tripod, and hiked about a mile up this hill to get to this spot. It was a very cool night, but there was some strange inversion happening. Almost anywhere I stood on the side of the hill was a stead hotel-room 72-degrees. And there was zero wind. It was a perfect night, and just when I arrived, the fog really started pouring over the bridge, so I set up for this shot...- Trey RatcliffClick here to read the rest of this post at the Stuck in Customs blog.

HDR Photo

Nikon 28-300 Review

Above:  A Peaceful Farm in Gibbston – Shutter 0.7s; f/5.6; 28mm; ISO 100

Nikon 28-300 Review

Above: Sheep on the way to Paradise, NZ — f/5.6; 70mm; ISO 100

High Dynamic Range Photo

The winter lake in the evening — f/4.8; 28mm; ISO 100

More Example Photos

To show you how much I like this lens and the range of the thing at the same time, here are two photos I grabbed while visiting the space shuttle. I’ll let you figure out which one was at 28mm and which one was at 300mm.

The Mighty Rocket Awaits Today I had a great day at NASA.  I've come back to the space coast in Florida to see the space shuttle Endeavor blast off, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.Around noon, I was invited out with a group of other Twitter peeps to see the RRS Rollback event.  This is the slow-motion but exciting time when they peel away to the Rotating Service Structure to reveal the shuttle.  It was so awesome that I almost forgot to send a tweet. - Trey Ratcliff Read more here at

The Mighty Rocket Awaits Today I had a great day at NASA. I’ve come back to the space coast in Florida to see the space shuttle Endeavor blast off, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.Around noon, I was invited out with a group of other Twitter peeps to see the RRS Rollback event. This is the slow-motion but exciting time when they peel away to the Rotating Service Structure to reveal the shuttle. It was so awesome that I almost forgot to send a tweet.Here you can see a zoom in I took at 300mm. It shows one of the workers on the scaffolding making some final preparations for the launch.- Trey RatcliffClick here to read the rest of this post at the Stuck in Customs blog.

Other Lens Reviews

You can read all the Lens Reviews right there on the link.

Any questions about the nature of these reviews? Visit my Ethics Statement. It’s all quite simple!

  • Can’t wait to see some sample photo Trey. I’m thinking about getting and saving space in my camera bag as well.

  • Does it really replace the 70-200? Does the quality compare? It seems like many of the things you shoot don’t require the f/2.8 so it makes sense but I need to be convinced on the quality front. I shoot a D90 and have the 18-200, it’s a good pair so I can see the appeal of this lens for FX.

  • Pads

    I’ve heard people say that it’s much better than 18-200mm’s performance – can’t wait to see your results. One other thing, are you even considering the 16-35mm to review?

  • I will post some photos on my web site tomorrow. I shot some shots during the rain to see whether I can replace my 28-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and my 80-400 VR lens with this one on a business trip requiring 5 flights in 23 days. I can see some distortion when looking at photos of building across the street; however, I can fix that in photoshop (I think) and from the camera LCD screen, the shots looked nice. I most likely would not shoot a wedding with it nor real photo assignments;however, as a travel light lens it might work out. I plan on taking my 14-24 2.8 as well as my 1.4 lenses for some specific shots I have in mind but I will travel to and from work with the 28-300 only with my D700.

  • I have placed my test shots on my smugmug site About 1/2 have captions that will provide camera setting. I will transpose more if I have time later.

  • john gabler

    Will the 28-300 work with the D-90?

  • Eduardo Abello

    I noticed that your 3 sample photos are within the range 28-70 mm. Did you consider the new Nikon 24-120 as an alternative to the new 28-300? There are some reviews of these lenses that recommend the 24-120 for its better colors.

  • Tommy Botello

    Since this will be replacing your 70-200mm, can I take it off your hands? LOL, really.

  • Does it have any lens creep? My 18-200 is pretty bad. If it has any at all you risk it happening in just minute amounts to screw up the clarity of a time-exposed shot. I couldn’t figure it out and then a workshop instructor pointed it out. If there is any, use the ‘rubber wristband around the barrel’ trick to fix/prevent it.


  • Thanks!

    Pads – Yes that is on my list… since I don’t really run a “Lab” kind of testing environment, my testing is limited to what I actually have time to use and try out… so I’m a bit slow on these things!

    Tommy – hehe… well… Maybe I might sell that 70-200 – let me think about it! 🙂

    Barry — no- have not noticed that… I think this one is much more solid design than the 18-200 — which seems a little plasticky… yes?

    Eduardo – yes — I have more sample photos at full zoom… will put those up soon. I don’t get caught up in colors too much — to me, the colors that I see in the resulting photo look good. It’s all a crapshoot in a way because of photoshop and post-processing anyway, for me.

  • Travis;-P

    The link to B&H leads to the 14-24mm.

  • How would this replace the 28-70 and 70-200 when it only stops down to f3.5? Plus if you are zoomed in to 70mm, you are already probably at f5, as opposed to a constant 2.8 on the 28-70 and 70-200. I have the 18-200 for my D90, and it doesn’t autofocus well in low light, how does the 28-300 fare in low light?

  • Bill B.


    Just returned from two weeks shooting in Italy with the 28-300 and frankly I am disappointed. There is some serious distortion when shooting vertical lines. Corners of buildings, chairs, doors, walls, and it does not really diminish at any focal length. It’s really pronounced from 28 to about 135mm. I do not know if there are different build qualities within focal length lenses but it is astonishing the “bulges” that I have shooting flat walls. Very pronounced curving of doors and door frames when shot at about 45 degrees to the door at 85mm.

    Time is money and I simply do not have the time to fix all these shots in Photoshop. To me the convenience factor was fantastic but the results just reinforce that the 28-70 and 70-200 2.8 are worth the weight.

    I also found myself shooting at ISO’s (D3s & D700) of over 1250 most of the time, and a lot of shots in late afternoon light of 4000+, due to the poor aperture performance. F8 to F11 was necessary many times as shooting wide open was not impressively sharp.

    Thanks for the inspiration!

  • Good feedback – thanks Bill — I use mine differently… since I shoot on a tripod so much, I keep my ISO at 100. Also… a bit of line/architecture distortion does not bother me as much as it does some people.

  • Digital Blind — I replace it because I am mostly a tripod-shooter when it comes to landscapes… so I don’t care about f stop so much. That make sense?

  • I purchased this lense for my 3 weeks in Europe (business – really was – computer security auditing) and I really appreciated the lens on the day in Pompei. Six hours of walking thoughtout the city (uneven pavement stones etc.) and I really liked the results ( available here … 1328_gzjBb ) and my back appreciated it as well. While I had the tripod, I did not take it to Pompei and the Rome authorities would not permit my entry into the forum area with it, the 28-300 lens really did well with more than 75% of my shots being at 28 mm and between F8 and F11. The HDR merge worked as well with over 80 % of those shots being handheld. The distortion of the lens is visiable on the horizon of the Tunis beach photos ( … 8040_THUHt ) but it is not too noticeable and I have not noticed it on all the other shots I took. If I had a client desiring the shots, I would utilize my other lenses; however, it was more than acceptable especially in the Tunis market where I would not have dared change a lens in that mass of humanity. For those of you looking at the night shots (Rome and Paris especially), very little of the processing was done on a calibrated monitor and I am in the processing of re-HDRing those shots with the green or orange cast to reduce that effect. Also none of the photos have been processed within Photoshop at this time and most likely will not be completed for several months.

  • Sorry about the links above. I did not use Trey’s post for how to post links to smugmug. The pompei photo is here and the Tunis horizon shot is here

  • Joseph Pellarin

    I used this lens with my D90 and it did not work the photos were awful. I am not a professional but I lost some good shots of deers with this lens. Give me my 18-200 any time

  • Joseph, you are using a DX senor camera. The 28 – 300 is a lens to provide those with an FX sensor to have the same range you have with your 18-200 lens. This lens is not recommended for use with the DX sensors. Also on the multiple reviews of this lens there appear to be some persons that had a defective lens. The wide range of reviews was one of the reasons I was hesitant on my purchase and I shot a range of test shots before I went on my trip. All of my Rome Forum shots from within the forum as well as all my Pompei shots and perhaps 85% of all the other shots on the trip were done with this lens. In Tunis I was able to get shots I never would have been able to do with one body had it not been for that lens. When you get an FX camera, you might want to reconsider use of this lens at that time.



  • Pingback: Le Gard()

  • Miles

    I have had the lens for about 3 months. I bought it as a walk around lens; specifically, I like to try to take photos while walking my dog and having one lens to use on my Fx camera that covers this wide a range is attractive. I also have the 18-200 for my Dx camera and am pleased with it for the same type of uses.

    My impression of the 28-300 is that is a slightly better lens than the 18-200. But, it does have a lot of distortion and I see quite a bit of chromatic aberration at the wide end of the spectrum. Much more than I ever see with my 18-200, but I have not done a test under the same situation.

    The lens does not replace a 70-200 f/2.8 or the 28-70 f/2.8, due to the obvious speed differences in those lenses. Plus, the optical quality cannot fairly be compared. The 2.8 lenses are just far, far superior. But, the 28-300 is all about convenience to me. When hiking or some type of day trip, it really suits my needs fine. It makes it easier to pack (one lens does it all), keeps the load light (compared to many lenses), allows me to catch shots more frequently (instead of fumbling with changing lenses) and (this is actually not mentioned enough, IMHO) it reduces sensor dust since I am not changing lenses all the time.

    The $1000 or so price tag is a big one and I do not think it worth it for everyone. Seems a great fit for Trey and his lifestyle and type of shooting. Pretty good fit for me as I am often out walking/hiking and taking day trips to various travel locations.

    The question I am still struggling with is does it replace my 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 VR? I think the quality of the 70-300 is much better. Over the next few months, I have to figure out if I should keep or sell the 70-300 and I do not think it will be an easy decision.

  • Ray Caldrer

    I’m not sure how much quality can be attributed to the Nikon 28-300mm lens by Eugene Stevens of Clarity Photo. Obviously, he can make photos taken with a point and shoot camera dressed with a jelly jar for a lens look like a million bucks. His post processing techniques are just outstanding! How is clarity of this magnitude achieved? Any tips? It obviously not just the lens.

  • Still trying to get my technique better. I just finished an advanced photoshop class and I am signed up for an advanced HDR class. My post processing is minimal. I am just now starting to bring HDR processed images into photoshop for further processing. Back on to the lens in question, this lens has its place. I used this lens in Annapolis when my cousins from France were visiting (not processed other than conversion from RAW to Jpg for web posting purposes) ( )and left it in the bag when I taking wedding photos 1/2 days later ( )(again RAW and with 1700 photos not processed via photoshop because of volumne and awaiting selection for further processing by the bridal party). I think all our photography are full of compromises some of which are hardware (lens and camera), others are software related (purpose and location) and my decision to post bridal proofs on line are time related (30/60 seconds per photo compared to 15 to 60 minutes per photo of photoshop post processing). Bottom line, I really like the lens and do not regret purchasing it; however, it you do not know its limitations it can produce some unwanted surprises and at this point I have not used it on a professional shoot.

  • Contractually I can not post the photos; however, last week I was on a photo shoot for a local high shcool Talent show and the first 43 of the 118 photos where shot with this lens (remainer with the 1.4 85 mm and 2.8 80-200). The school downloads from the studio’s FTP site and those images are restricted to 2000 K or less. The 28-300 let me work backstage before the performance and I just reviewed the 118 photos and I can not see any quality difference for this type of shoot (available light and flash) between the 28-300 and my other two lenses. A series of 10 shots with available light could not have been shot with this lens and the 2.8 80-200 lens gave me a greater depth of field than I would have been able to get with the 28-300 for the 2nd half of the shoot; however, the 28-300 permitted a greater variance in my shot selection than my 2.8 28-70 lens would have permitted.

  • Thanks for the review. I’m surprised how well this lens is being received by people who make a living off of shooting photos. Admittedly, I am a “prime lens only” type of photographer, but I am very intrigued by this lens.

    It would be very nice to get rid of my entire bag on less serious shoots and just walking around. The images that you have posted look great. I primarily shoot film, so I would imagine that 35mm is less strenuous on lens performance.

  • This lens continues to surprise me. My AF-VR-80-400 has failed for the 3rd or 4th time (zoom does work in the telephoto direction now). I use the 80-400 as my soccer, Lax, football, baseball and softball assignments (as long as there is enough light). With the demise of this lens, I put the 28-300 on my last two assignments (baseball/softball and Lax). While I miss the reach of the 80-400 (can not get events occuring on the far sidelines) and it has performed very well. In addition to being lighter than the 80-400, the image quality for high school yearbooks is not lacking. A pleasant shooting poiint is the wide angle capability on the close field shots shots which before, I would be cutting off the student’s legs, I can even get the defender by going to the wider angle capability. In the baseball side line shots, I am able to get both the runner as well as the fielder throwing the the ball. In the three baseball and softball games the past two assignments, I got at least 20 more shots per game that I would have missed with a strictly telephoto lens.

  • Curt

    I purchased a D700 and the 28-300 lens together about two months ago. Before that I had been using a D300 with the 18-200 VR mentioned by several people above.

    I see a lot of positive feedback on this lens, but I am disappointed with it. I shoot mostly at night, with long exposures – and always with a tripod. The barrel distortion is excessive, and the focus is soft in all focal lengths.

    I was told that in order to get the huge zoom range, I would pay a price by losing sharpness. That was an understatement.

    I am spending a LOT of time in Photoshop, sharpening and correcting barrel distortion on almost every shot taken. After spending a couple of years concentrating on the sharpness of my photos, this lens has taken me backwards a bit.

    I’m still a staunch Nikon believer, and will probably replace this lens with a couple of less ‘zoomy’ models.

  • This lens does not appear to be a low light vehicle as enumerated at this web site . As you read this reference you will see that there has been a large number of faulty units created and you need to return the unit to Nikon for a replacement if you have a lot of barrel distortion and lack of sharpness. My test shots enumerated earlier in this thread demonstrate that you can receive a good copy of this lens. While I initially bought the lens as a snap and grin walk about lens, I have found that I can use it professionally for my high school sports photography and it may well replace my 80-400 mm lens for outdoor daylight field photography (football, Lax, and soccer). This is because of its wide angle view permitting my ablility to capture events close to me whereby with the 80-400 I can not capture the full view of the student.

  • Pingback: The Mighty Rocket Awaits()

  • Jaroslaw Predki

    Hello Tray,

    Just wanted to leave a comment and say that I really enjoy reading your site and peeking at your work. You’re a great inspiration. Your story and background also inspires me as I am also moving from game development and software engineering, and jumping into my passion which has been photography for some time now.

    I’ve been reading your lens reviews and checking prices for my upcoming purchases, and I noticed that the B&H Photo link for the Nikon 28-300 Lens points to the 14-28 lens instead. I believe this is the link you want:

    Thanks for all the info on your site regarding HDR photography.
    Your site has become a daily visit for me.

    – Jarek

  • Pingback: The Shuttle Prepares()

  • Your link at the top, for the 28-300 on BH photo website, is linked to the wrong lens. It goes to the 14-24mm. Just an FYI

  • Hakan

    For fast and flexible photography, without compromising to much on lens quality, I always carry 2 cameras around my neck. (With a little training you can switch camera in a blink of an eye). One camera has a 24-70mm 2.8 on it and the other a 70-200mm 2.8 VRII lens. On top of that I carry a TC1.4 II and a SB900 in my pockets. This combination provides an awful lot of shooting options and is relatively easy to carry. For pure landscape photography I only carry one camera with the 24-70mm lens on it but I also bring along my 14-24mm 2.8.

    An ignorant amateur photographer can mess up most of his pictures with the best of lenses whilst a good one can make wonders with basically any camera and lens combination. I belong to a category somewhere in between, I’m not good enough to make the best out of a poor lens and not bad enough to scrue up most of my images with a good one.

  • Justin

    Those are some great photos! I am interested in learning more about the last one though (the one at 28mm, assuming I got the quiz right). Did you shoot that with a polarizing filter, or is the sky’s gradient from HDR’ing?


  • Pingback: The Shuttle Prepares - Plucking out the best stories at Repluck - Latest News()

  • Guillermo Almanza

    The more I use this lens the more I become satisfied with its performance.It is extremely sharp and very fast.I have many shots of sea gulls flying over and around me while my ship was getting off the port of Stockholm in Sweden. It is really incredible its capacity to focus those birds while passing so fast and hastening away from me.The sharp of their feathers the looking of their eyes are awesome. I think there must be bad copies of this lens in the market.I have taken more than 1600 photos during my last trip to Europe,and all of them were extremely sharp.I always used ISO 1000 and f/8. I recognize that I had some distortion in a few photos but nothing to speak of, and besides trivial to correct in the photoshop anyhow.I also used the 17-35 f/2.8 and the famous 14-24 8f/2.8 without seeing any difference in sharpness at 2.8 among them all. I must recognize that the 14-24 is the best at f/2.8.In short, I think that this lense is one of the best ever made by Nikon and I ,must say, that I am a maniac about sharpness.

  • golan

    hello there.. i loved the NZ Landscape photos. do you have more photos from New Zealand that i can see? since i will visit there on march 2012

  • Hello.
    I have D5000. Can you recommend this lens for my camera? Is it good for crop?
    P.S. You have incorrect link to B&H on the top.

  • Pingback: Power Lines | ShootBar()

  • Hey, I have a D5000 and this exact lens. While it works perfectly on anything Nikon has to offer in Film, DX and FX format it will be a little limiting on the DX crop. You’ll want to keep your 18-55 kit lens on hand for wider angles as the 28mm when converted to a Crop of 1.5 becomes 42mm. If you want to future proof and later upgrade to an FX camera then this lens is a great investment as it becomes the 18-200mm equivalent for FX (18-200 as 35eqv is 27-300).

  • Aaron Eiger

    I have had this lens on  a D7000 for about a month.  It has great overall range, the build and IQ are a lot better than the 18-200.  My other lens is a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC.  However, I found that it doesnt get the nice bokeh that a 70-200 f2.8 does.

    What I am wondering is if it would be better to have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8?  The speed, bokeh and macro features would be better than the 28-300.  
    Some more pros about the 28-300 is that it is compact and has a nice overlap with my 17-50 f2.8. 

    The problem is that I shoot all sorts of things (architecture, people, sports, nature, etc).

    Any thoughts?


  • i like ur photos look perfect

  • wow!great!i like them.

  • Rosario Bozo

    Very beautiful your photos… congratulations…

  • yes it is very sweet & just right funny thing its that everyone that has many other lens hate cuz it can do so much

  • Pingback: Côte d’Ivoire 11 | Latest News For Everthing You Know()

  • Why would this lens become an 18-200 with an FX body? As far as I know, this is an FX lens.

  • Just wondering if you have done the full review of this lens. Thanks for your useful work.

  • Michael

    I’m with you on this Curt. I bought this lens for my D700 in hopes of having the full-frame equivalent to the 18-200 I used on my D90. Sadly, the image quality with this lens pales in comparison to any other lens I own and I can’t wait to get rid of it.

  • jeffrockr

    I think the 28-300 is great outdoor, but will make you mad if you shoot in low light and fast situations, unless you plan to upgrade to a d3 and up (which can handle the noise so well you wouldnt be ashamed to bump up your iso) But if you’re really going to use it on a d7000 , the sigma os is a good lens, in my opinion better than the 28-300. Has less range but the 2.8 can come in very handy ( and you already have the 17-50 to cover the wide end). However, I would go anytime for a used nikon 70-200 vr1 over a new sigma 70-200 2.8 os , just for the focus speed in darker situations and for the sharpness , but only at the edges.

  • Prabath Malluwa Wadu

    I have this lens on my D800. Very good in day light, but not so for indoor people photography. The big pee vee is, it is not a 28-300, but actually 28-200. From 200 to 300, there is no, I mean NO, zero, nada, zoom effect. Just the ring rotates. What a bummer.

  • planning an overseas trip and considering getting the 28-300 to accomodate my D800, but after reading your post, maybe i should stick with the 18-200 DX lens and possibly add a teleconverter?? I dont really know if a DX lens on an FX body is bad….. i was thinking the 28-300 would be a good light choice for travelling and walking all day with a heavy setup. But after reading your post, im unsure what the best lens option is for a full frame camera, that is a light option.

  • Mike CJ

    Because of the crop factor. In other words, what you see in the viewfinder of the DX camera with the 18-200 would be the same as what you see in the viewfinder of an FX camera with the 28-300 lens.

  • Mike CJ

    You have to be careful. The D800 may automatically convert to DX crop mode when a DX lens is connected to it. You might as well have kept your D90. You might also consider the 24-120 f/4, which is an FX lens.

  • Mike CJ

    Good to hear. I am lucky in that I live in a big pro-photo town and there is a rental shop closeby where I can rent this 28-300 lens for $30 for a weekend. Try it out and see how I like it before buying.

  • so are you saying that the lens is broken?

  • I don’t see how those images could have possibly been taken from the same vantage point. Though I’m sure your 300mm has the umf it needs to get a close up like this, it’s not from the same position as the 28mm – that is clear.

  • copajaus

    Bought this lens because I liked the idea of a light camera bag to carry.

    Unfortunately it does not cut it for me on a D800. I own the 14-24/24-70/70-200 F 2.8 and there is a big difference in quality.
    Lack of details rendering + distortion + chromatic aberrations compared to the above is quite substantial. I keep the lens for the days when I just want one lens to do everything or sports but that’s about it.

  • Pingback: Nice Technology photos - Top Tech News | Top Tech News()

  • java

    Man! People say some off the wall things. So here is mine: I’ve been using the 24-70 for some time and was never very impressed. I bought the 28-300, and after a short time realized that it is sharper than the 24-70, particularly in that limited focal range. I find it to be sharp enough throughout the 28-300 range to sell my 24-70 and 70-200 (2.8). Now, what if I cave in to the idea of a D800 over my D700? hmmm …

  • almian

    Please recommend me..Nikon d5200 with 28-300… how is this combination for traveling and wedding photography.. each and every type of comments and suggestions please

  • Alan Slimak

    Here is how the crop factor works. This lens works on both DX and FX format cameras. DX cameras have a smaller (Cropped) sensor. The crop rate for nikon is approx 1.5x. FX cameras have sensors that are not cropped. When you use this lens on a FX camera, the images are not cropped and the zoom range is 28-300mm. When you use this lens on a DX camera, the cropped sensor comes into play when figuring out the zoom range. You have to multiply the zoom range of the lens by 1.5x to account for the cropped DX sensor. So, when you use this lens on a DX camera, the zoom range is actually equivalent to a 42-450mm. This is one of the little unknown, seldom talked about advantages of a DX body. Another example… the 105mm f/2.8 macro lens when used on an FX body has a fixed zoom of 105mm. Use the same lens on a DX body and it’s zoom is 157.5mm. DX users can squeeze 1.5 times more zoom out of lenses than FX users. One thing I never understood was why DX only lenses have the zoom range listed as if the lens was being used on an FX camera. Example: When the blue shirts at Best Buy talk you into buying that 55-200mm zoom for your new D5500, you are actually getting a 82.5-300mm lens. At least that is the zoom range you will see when you use it to take pictures. Those DX only lenses do not work on FX cameras… well they do, but you get serious vignetting and image clarity issues. I don’t know why those lenses are advertised as 82-300mm instead of 55-200mm.

  • BloodSteyn

    On any new FX camera the Software comes into play and essentially only makes use of a DX size portion of the sensor to prevent vignetting from happening.
    So Screwing any DX lens onto an FX will turn your FX into a DX for any pics you take. Clever as it allows you to upgrade from a DX body to an FX body while still letting you use your current set of lenses while you save up for that proper FX lens.

  • Alan Slimak

    Yes, but the image quality drops significantly. I’m not sacrificing image quality for some DX lenses

  • Pingback: The Shuttle Prepares | Digital HD Cameras()

Newsletter Sign Up

The most beautiful newsletter ever!