Nikon 18-300mm f3.5-5.6G AF-S DX lens

Just wondering for those of you that have this lens...what made you pick Nikon vs another company?

I've been going nuts looking at different zooms. I want reach for my photos, but wasn't sure the difference from a 18,80,70,55- 200 or 300?

All I know is when I'm out and about at a port, I seem to have the wrong lens on. (I only have two) I looked at everything from a cost of $2,300- $144.00. What I gather is that the 18 will give me a wider angle? The pictures I've been looking at for alll these lenses aren't helping me.....seems like everyone LOVESSSSSSSSSSSS flowers..lol

I was looking at the

Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8D Zoom

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG APO Macro

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto zoom

Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX

Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 G ED IF AF-S DX

The nikon that was a f1.2 ? (that was the one 2,300) but I thought that would be good in low light. But thought how much would I really use it inside.

I'm all over the board. If I could at least narrow it down to a size, that would even help some. But I think I'm going towards the 18.

HELP!!!:o

DSLR lenses are interchangeable for a reason, because no one lens can do it all.

There are lenses that try to do it all -- like the 18-300. From wide, to super telephoto. But those lenses make a lot of compromises in image quality, while costing more. They are 'jacks of all trades, masters of none. '

A good 70-300 will cost less, be lighter, and give you better image quality. But you'd need to change lenses when you want to go wide.

The Tamron 70-300 is an excellent lens, sharper than the Nikkor.

Thank you both for your input....

Anyone else ???

The Tamron 70-300 is an excellent lens, sharper than the Nikkor.

I have both and disagree..

When I need a new lens, I go to Dpreview.com. There I can compare a lens by manufacture, also they have great forums on your camera by manufactuer. If I have photo questions, go there for ansewers. Give it a go.

Tom :cool:

When I need a new lens, I go to Dpreview.com. There I can compare a lens by manufacture, also they have great forums on your camera by manufactuer. If I have photo questions, go there for ansewers. Give it a go.

Tom :cool:

Already gave it ago...that was part of my research

I have both and disagree..

Paul, can you tell me your thoughts....please

Your lense list really is overlapping.

If you want a do all lense I would consider a few

Nikon 16-85: Best consumer DX, is nice it has 16mm which you may not think is a lot but 2mm on the wide side is really nice. 85mm on the long side isn't too much but okay for most walk around

Nikon 18-300/18-200 are both reasonable superzooms. The Tamron 18-270 is also a better value. The difference between them are small. Nikon holds value but is more pricey. You can find good deals for used Tamrons more then Nikon

The 80-2002.8D is a big fast monster heavy lense. Unless you are shooting sports or need the best IQ at low light this is too much lense. I

The 70-300 Tamron and Nikon are both very good, the Tamron is the newest and very well regarded with its new silient motor and stabilization. If you get these you will still need a second lense to cover the more standard walk around range from 18-70mm.

I good combo would be the Nikon 16-85 and Tamron 70-300.

Just wondering for those of you that have this lens...what made you pick Nikon vs another company?

 

I've been going nuts looking at different zooms. I want reach for my photos, but wasn't sure the difference from a 18,80,70,55- 200 or 300?

All I know is when I'm out and about at a port, I seem to have the wrong lens on. (I only have two) I looked at everything from a cost of $2,300- $144.00. What I gather is that the 18 will give me a wider angle? The pictures I've been looking at for alll these lenses aren't helping me.....seems like everyone LOVESSSSSSSSSSSS flowers..lol

 

I was looking at the

Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8D Zoom

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG APO Macro

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto zoom

Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX

Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 G ED IF AF-S DX

 

The nikon that was a f1.2 ? (that was the one 2,300) but I thought that would be good in low light. But thought how much would I really use it inside.

I'm all over the board. If I could at least narrow it down to a size, that would even help some. But I think I'm going towards the 18.

HELP!!!:o

Just bought the Nikon 18-300. Had an early Tamron 18-270 that I sold on ebay. The Nikon 18-300 is ideal travel lens unless you are a professional that sells photos or needs a $3000 lens for sports or low light.

Will take only the Nikon 18-300 and a Sigma 10-20 to Paris/France this June.

The Nikon is very superior to the early Tamron. Fast focus (Tamron would not fous in many cases) , smooth zoom, and the manual/auto focus is nice. It also has two modes for stabilization.

Much better lens than the Tamron.

Hi blueberries... good to "see" you on here again...

I have the Nikon 18-300 DX lens and here's why...

Two-plus years ago, when I bought my Nikon D7000, I also bought the Nikon 18-200mm lens as my walk around lens for travel. There's only so much gear my knees can handle, and only so much patience my partner has for my changing lenses. I love the 18-200 and it's worked out well for me (and my marriage, :)).

Some time ago, however, we booked a trip we've wanted to do for a very long time -- an expedition to Antarctica aboard the National Geographic Explorer for earlier this year (Jan/Feb 2013). After a good deal of research there were several things I concluded: the 18-200mm lens would be fine on land (though longer would be good too), the 200mm would be too short for many shots of birds and other wildlife from the ship, changing lenses on land would very often not be an option because of wind, weather, slippery surfaces, etc., and, finally, you never want to get caught without a wide enough lens on your camera.

While some folks advocated getting or renting a 400mm lens for use aboard the ship, taking a lens like that, with all the weight restrictions we had on our flights and just the whole gear schlep factor, wasn't realistic for me. Well, about the time I was scratching my head over all this, Nikon released the 18-300mm lens, so I bought it and gave it a good workout last summer (including at our local zoo), and decided this would be my "single lens solution" for Antarctica.

I think it worked out great. Since you are looking for pics other than of flowers, I have posted some below so you can get a sense of the versatility of the lens. I will caution you that it's quite heavy (particularly paired with the D7000), so please keep that in mind if the lens is of interest to you. Happy to answer other questions.

(photos by turtles06, Nikon D7000 and Nikkor 18-300mm DX lens)

Just bought the Nikon 18-300. Had an early Tamron 18-270 that I sold on ebay. The Nikon 18-300 is ideal travel lens unless you are a professional that sells photos or needs a $3000 lens for sports or low light.

 

Will take only the Nikon 18-300 and a Sigma 10-20 to Paris/France this June.

 

The Nikon is very superior to the early Tamron. Fast focus (Tamron would not fous in many cases) , smooth zoom, and the manual/auto focus is nice. It also has two modes for stabilization.

Much better lens than the Tamron.

Thank you so much for replying. I love the fact that you had both, so you can really be a fair judge. I too was thinking only two lens. I have a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 that I absolutely love. Every time I use that lens, I say out loud...I'm so happy I got this lens...worth every penny.

I wanted a nice zoom, because the one that came with my camera doesn't really go the distance I want.

I really appreciate your honest feedback. Thanks so much!

Hi Turtles06, thanks so much for the responce and the pictures. I called my DH from the other room to look at them....they are sooooooo cute!

(I yelled to him come here, come here, you have to see these:))

Don't get me wrong, I want a good lens, and would rather "pay for it" (more money if that's what I need to do) then getting so-so results, or worse yet, regretting that I didn't spend the money. Also, on the other hand, I don't want to spend money foolishly.

So that's what I'm out to do, get down to brass tacks and get the right lens.

Thanks so much! (Nice hearing from you too)

You never said what camera body you have. The Nikon 80-200 you listed will not autofocus on the "entry level" models. (you need a model with a focus motor in the body to use the autofocus).

Also, what lens do you have now? What do you plan on shooting? You might be better off with a couple of prime lenses. (I have a 24mm and 50mm that I use 90% of the time on my D7000. They are both tiny and weigh next to noting and I can keep the other one in my pocket)

You never said what camera body you have. The Nikon 80-200 you listed will not autofocus on the "entry level" models. (you need a model with a focus motor in the body to use the autofocus).

 

Also, what lens do you have now? What do you plan on shooting? You might be better off with a couple of prime lenses. (I have a 24mm and 50mm that I use 90% of the time on my D7000. They are both tiny and weigh next to noting and I can keep the other one in my pocket)

Hey TruckerDave, I have the D7000 as well with the lens that came with it along with a Tokina 11-16 f2.8

Hey TruckerDave, I have the D7000 as well with the lens that came with it along with a Tokina 11-16 f2.8

so you have one of the best wide angles for crop bodies. and the 18-105 which is a decent lens.

If you want longer reach I would look at the nikon 80-200 or sigma 70-200. they are both a f2.8 and run about 1200+/- on the online stores.

If you want "normal" walk around stuff. I'd look at the nikon 50mm 1.8d (about $120 online and a great low price fast lens) and the nikon 24mm 2.8d is good as well for something a tad wider.

sigma also makes a 50-150 f2.8 and a 150-500mm (this is the combo I am looking at later this year myself :D )

so you have one of the best wide angles for crop bodies. and the 18-105 which is a decent lens.

 

If you want longer reach I would look at the nikon 80-200 or sigma 70-200. they are both a f2.8 and run about 1200+/- on the online stores.

 

If you want "normal" walk around stuff. I'd look at the nikon 50mm 1.8d (about $120 online and a great low price fast lens) and the nikon 24mm 2.8d is good as well for something a tad wider.

 

sigma also makes a 50-150 f2.8 and a 150-500mm (this is the combo I am looking at later this year myself :D )

I don't think a 70-200 will be enough reach for me. In the reviews online of the 18-300, I did read some people mention that they gave up on the 70-200 because of the reach, or there lack of.

We may be sailing out june/july, but I'm not comcerned about getting the lens for that trip, but we are doing a b2b in oct. and I do want it for then. That leaves me a couple of months to look around yet. So far I think I'm going with the 18-300. But I want to see all my options.

I don't think a 70-200 will be enough reach for me. In the reviews online of the 18-300, I did read some people mention that they gave up on the 70-200 because of the reach, or there lack of.

We may be sailing out june/july, but I'm not comcerned about getting the lens for that trip, but we are doing a b2b in oct. and I do want it for then. That leaves me a couple of months to look around yet. So far I think I'm going with the 18-300. But I want to see all my options.

A few more thoughts, given your additional information.

As you examine your options, I think you may first want to decide whether you want this new lens to be the single lens you keep on your camera in port (except for your ultra wide for those occasions when it's called for); in other words -- enough reach at the long end, and enough wideness at the other end that you won't be caught short... If that's the case, then either the Nikon 18-200 or 18-300 (or the Tamron 18-270, I don't own it so can't speak personally) would fit the bill. I think that on the D7000, if you are walking around with anything on the wide end that is longer than 18mm, you will find yourself in situations where you can't take the shot you want.

But if you will be happy having your 18-105 on the camera, and changing to a much longer lens when you want that reach, then there's really no need for the hugely heavy (and pricey) 18-300. Personally, when I'm traveling, I would find 105mm too short so often that I'd be changing lenses a great deal (which is why I bought the 18-200 a couple of years ago). But if you haven't felt that way, then maybe you only need something like a 70-300.

A few more thoughts, given your additional information.

 

As you examine your options, I think you may first want to decide whether you want this new lens to be the single lens you keep on your camera in port (except for your ultra wide for those occasions when it's called for); in other words -- enough reach at the long end, and enough wideness at the other end that you won't be caught short... If that's the case, then either the Nikon 18-200 or 18-300 (or the Tamron 18-270, I don't own it so can't speak personally) would fit the bill. I think that on the D7000, if you are walking around with anything on the wide end that is longer than 18mm, you will find yourself in situations where you can't take the shot you want.

 

But if you will be happy having your 18-105 on the camera, and changing to a much longer lens when you want that reach, then there's really no need for the hugely heavy (and pricey) 18-300. Personally, when I'm traveling, I would find 105mm too short so often that I'd be changing lenses a great deal (which is why I bought the 18-200 a couple of years ago). But if you haven't felt that way, then maybe you only need something like a 70-300.

I would have to change lenses every other picture. One minute I want a picture of a straw market, or maybe a local, then I would like a picture of our cruise ship out in the distance, then maybe a street...I'm all over. So I thought this would be a good choice. But I will say I will be changing to the tokina when I'm taking inside pictures of the ship. LOVE THAT LENS!

Will take only the Nikon 18-300 and a Sigma 10-20 to Paris/France this June

I have this same lens combo with the D7000 and it works great. Would certainly be nice to have something better for low light and something a bit longer but all in all, it's a wonderful combo.

I would have to change lenses every other picture. One minute I want a picture of a straw market, or maybe a local, then I would like a picture of our cruise ship out in the distance, then maybe a street...I'm all over. So I thought this would be a good choice. But I will say I will be changing to the tokina when I'm taking inside pictures of the ship. LOVE THAT LENS!

Well then, I think you would love the 18-200 or the 18-300; I guess you'll need to figure out which one would be best for you, all things (including the weight) considered.

I know what you mean abou the ultrawide. A friend who has moved on to FX cameras gave me her Nikon 12-24mm, and I totally love it for taking pictures inside of ships, buildings, you name it...

Just wondering for those of you that have this lens...what made you pick Nikon vs another company?

 

I've been going nuts looking at different zooms. I want reach for my photos, but wasn't sure the difference from a 18,80,70,55- 200 or 300?

All I know is when I'm out and about at a port, I seem to have the wrong lens on. (I only have two) I looked at everything from a cost of $2,300- $144.00. What I gather is that the 18 will give me a wider angle? The pictures I've been looking at for alll these lenses aren't helping me.....seems like everyone LOVESSSSSSSSSSSS flowers..lol

 

I was looking at the

Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8D Zoom

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG APO Macro

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto zoom

Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX

Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 G ED IF AF-S DX

 

The nikon that was a f1.2 ? (that was the one 2,300) but I thought that would be good in low light. But thought how much would I really use it inside.

I'm all over the board. If I could at least narrow it down to a size, that would even help some. But I think I'm going towards the 18.

HELP!!!:o

I purchased this lens last Fall and used it on a world cruise earlier this year. I love it. It became my go to lens and I was able to use it most everywhere. I highly recommend it.

Keith

I purchased this lens last Fall and used it on a world cruise earlier this year. I love it. It became my go to lens and I was able to use it most everywhere. I highly recommend it.

 

Keith

Thank you Keith for responding.

Paul, can you tell me your thoughts....please

Nikon better built. Uses same filter set as my other faster Nikon lens (minor). I found the Nikon a little sharper at the longer range with faster focus.

I specifically had issue with the motors in my Tamron first lens.

The only advantage is see with the Tamron is that it is indeed lighter and cheaper. But you get what you pay for.

But you get what you pay for.

This is why I don't mind spending the money. I just didn't want to be disapointed in the lens.