On 28-300/D810 combo.

[Akira]

Whenever I used a 200mm lens, I always wanted the extra reach. 

To me, 70-200/4.0 is not really a "compromise", but it has its own place for its own right.  Given the close focus capability which is superior to the faster brother, if could even make up partially for the absence of the Zoom Micro 70-180.

[longzoom]

The 70-200/4 is another good compromise if you don't need the extra reach. My guess is the new 70-300 will have the same 67mm filter as the current model and the 70-200/4. What Nikon really needs is a compact standard zoom - the 24-85VR is the smallest and quite bulky. Maybe something like 24-70/4, also with 67mm filter to match the tele-zooms. That would make a very nice two-lens kit.

Longzoom, you always get such great results with the 28-300 and 80-400!

     Thank you, Roland! So far I am using old, small and very good 28-70/3.5-4.5, to complement my 80-400G, but new 24-70/4 VR will be great choice, in future! THX!  LZ

[chambeshi]

     Thank you, Roland! So far I am using old, small and very good 28-70/3.5-4.5, to compliment my 80-400G, but new 24-70/4 VR will be great choice, in future! THX!  LZ

As the 28-105 AFD is obsolete (but still useful), what about the 24-120 f4G VR ? So complementing a 70-300, although we see again here how well the 28-300 performs in its latest builds

[longzoom]

As the 28-105 AFD is obsolete (but still useful), what about the 24-120 f4G VR ? So complementing a 70-300, although we see again here how well the 28-300 performs in its latest builds

       I've no idea about 24-120/4 lens today. Have tried one from the very first batch, was not surprised. So far the 28-300 and old stunning (after adjusting!) 20/2.8 AFD making a good working pare for me. Very nicely complementing each other! THX!  LZ

[longzoom]

Whenever I used a 200mm lens, I always wanted the extra reach. 

To me, 70-200/4.0 is not really a "compromise", but it has its own place for its own right.  Given the close focus capability which is superior to the faster brother, if could even make up partially for the absence of the Zoom Micro 70-180.

  I share the same point on the 70-200/4 lens. Will be interesting to try it with Canon 500D screw-up! THX! LZ

[Danulon]

How to identify whether a sample is part of the latest production batch?
Does anyone have the serial number range of that batch?
Thanks in advance!

[longzoom]

How to identify whether a sample is part of the latest production batch?
Does anyone have the serial number range of that batch?
Thanks in advance!

     The SN range of Nikon's equipment is depending on country you are living in, as far as I know. You may try that genius Roland Vink's table. Or simply do what I did - go to the biggest store with huge revolving equipment scale, with good exchange policy, if needed. Good luck on this!   LZ

[MFloyd]

For info, my 28-300mm has as serial number 52185769 and is supposed to be of the last generation. At least, the quality is top.

[Hugh_3170]

My current 28-300mm lens was purchased in Melbourne, Australia around late June 2013 and its Serial Number is 52, 149, 14x  (I have added the commas for clarity).

It replaced another 28-300mm which was destroyed in a fall.  It was also purchased in Melbourne, Australia in early 2012 IIRC and its Serial was 52, 001, 27x.

Maybe they were/are both of the so called last generation.  Personally I have not been able to tell them apart based on their optical performance, both of which have been excellent.  I realise that sample variation can play a part, and perhaps I have therefore simply been very lucky to have received two good lenses. 

EDIT:

Roland Vink's Nikon Lens Database lists the lens as having come onto the market from August 2010, and with Serial Numbers outside of the US being in the range 52000001 - 52210100, and Serial Numbers for the US market being in the range of: 56000001 - 56078890. 

Maybe there are further "Sub-Ranges" within these two broad ranges, or maybe a magic date where quality levels have been lifted?  I must admit that I am only guessing when I pose these two questions.

 

[Roland Vink]

Serial numbers for lenses are world-wide, but for some models there is a separate series for Nikon USA. I'm not sure why some models get USA serial numbers and others don't, it seems rather random to me. For example there does not appear to be US serial numbers for the AFS 20/1.8, 24/1.8 and 35/1.8, but there is for the AFS 28/1.8 and 50/1.8.

Serial numbers for Nikon cameras are regional (Japan, USA, Europe ...) except for most "pro" models.

For the Nikon 1 system, there are series by region and by color - too many combination, and too little data for me to track accurately so I gave up on them (besides there was little interest from me and not much demand from the general public)

Regarding the 28-300, I have seen nothing to suggest there are sub-series within the USA or World serial numbers. If there was a small gap of a few thousand, my data wouldn't pick it up since I don't generally get more than one serial number in thousands, so it could be possible. My feeling is that serial numbers are more or less continuous, and numbers are only reset for major changes such as shifting production from Japan to China. There may be minor silent changes along the way as the assembly line is refined, or cheaper/improved parts are used, which could mean lenses made later perform differently from earlier examples.

[longzoom]

2017-05-21 028-1 by 2017-05-21 051-1 by longzoom, on Flickr/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr2017-05-21 051-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickr.     Sometimes, I am continuing to use this nice Zoom... Yeah, last image of good Samarian today... A crop.  LZ

[David H. Hartman]

As the 28-105 AFD is obsolete (but still useful), what about the 24-120 f4G VR ? So complementing a 70-300, although we see again here how well the 28-300 performs in its latest builds

The quality of construction of the AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D doesn't match either the AF​ 28-70/3.5-4.5D or AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkors. The 28-105 has some binding when zooming at the wide end so it's​ difficult to set the zoom exactly​ where you want it (2 copies).. I think it's enharent vice.

These three lenses all have one aspheric element so a good copy gives a good optical performance. I returned one 28-70 for alignment problems and one 28-105 for a CPU contact problem. I sold one 28-105 as I preferred the small, discreet size of the others. These were all kit lenses so checking a new arrival for optical issues is wize. There may be problems that aren't apperant from the external aperance.

Dave Hartman

[Øivind Tøien]

The quality of construction of the AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D doesn't match either the AF​ 28-70/3.5-4.5D or AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkors. The 28-105 has some binding when zooming at the wide end so it's​ difficult to set the zoom exactly​ where you want it (2 copies).. I think it's enharent vice.

No binding at the wide on on my copy of the AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D, just a little the last few mm at the long end (perhaps by design). But it has too many (prime lens) competitors and have not seen much use in the digital age on DX format. For a long while it was boxed up with the intention of selling it - presently sitting as a body cap on my D200 ...

[longzoom]

2017-07-07 004-1 by 2017-07-07 004-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickrotos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], 2017-07-07 004-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickron Flickr.   The same combo, at 300mm, f8.0, 2 crops. THX!  LZ

[John Geerts]

The first one is great. I like the detailed silhouettes against the foggy background.