Nikon 18-300mm

PaulohnPaulohn Posts: 33Member
edited February 2013 in Nikon Lenses
I haven't seen any topics about the Nikon 18-300mm lens in the forum. Does anyone has it?
I have seen (here and in other places) good reviews on the "classic" 18-200mm, despite the flaws of long zoom lenses, of course.
How would the 18-300mm compare to the 18-200mm? Has it the same overall quality and sharpness levels?
Thanks.

Comments

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,445Member
    I have the 18-200 and find it adequate but soft. The advantage is one lens for everything: not the best lens for anything. I do not have the 18-300 but my understanding is that it is the same with just longer reach.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited February 2013
    I figured we'd try to cloud the issue with a few facts first so I pulled the MTF charts from imaging.nikon.com.

    18-300 MTF wide
    image
    18-300 MTF tele
    image

    18-200 MTF wide
    image
    18-200 MTF tele
    image

    Reviews seem to indicate the 18-300 is a bit better in the 50-200 range than the 18-200
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,251Member
    Interesting how they made it to be f/5.6 at the far end. Not sure how they did that.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @ NSXTypeR
    The AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is simply designed that way. Almost all extremely wide range zooms are non-fixed aperture. If this were an f/3.5 all the way out, it would no doubt be a $2000 lens or more...out of the range of many DX shooters.
    Msmoto, mod
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,251Member
    @ NSXTypeR
    The AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is simply designed that way. Almost all extremely wide range zooms are non-fixed aperture. If this were an f/3.5 all the way out, it would no doubt be a $2000 lens or more...out of the range of many DX shooters.
    No, I know they're variable aperture lenses, but the 18-200 was already 5.6 at the far end.

    If they could make the 18-300 f/5.6 at the far end, I'm just curious why they didn't make the 18-200 faster at the 200 end.

    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,317Member
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • PaulohnPaulohn Posts: 33Member
    Thank you all, people!

    Next time I'm on vacation, I'll buy this lens.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,445Member
    Some have suggested it as the lens you put on for vacation and use 90% of the time only needing to replace it with a 35 or 50mm f1.8 for inside shots in dim light.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,510Moderator
    An attractive idea, but as it would be my desire to always shoot the sharpest I can afford, I will stick with the supposedly sharper 70-300 (which I find soft after 250mm).
    Always learning.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,445Member
    edited February 2013
    I agree, the 70-300 is sharper but you have to switch lenses to get wide angle. I have only taken my 18-200 with me when I needed to shoot wide to telephoto in a very fast moving situation when I didn't expect to be able to change lenses. For example, a lot of couples were meeting for Senior Prom and wanting both large group shots around a backyard swimming pool as well as portraits when lots of other people (parents) were also there taking photos and you had to grab what you could as quickly as possible. It helped very much to not carry a photo bag and to be able to adjust the lens for what I needed immediately and shoot auto fill flash (although the light was softer early evening light). Sometimes I needed to shoot the group of 12 across the pool and sometimes I needed to shoot a couple from 7 feet away. The prints were great, but 8x10 was the largest I made so any lack of sharpness was not really a problem. The kids didn't want too many pimples showing anyway! I used my D7000 and it worked out great; plenty of resolution for the task at hand.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @ NSXTypeR

    I guess the 18-200 is a kit lens, designed and built to provide a wide range of focal length with low price. And, to make it faster...more cost. We actually have no idea why Nikon does anything, but this is my guess.
    Msmoto, mod
  • mustangdarenmustangdaren Posts: 27Member
    I had the 18-200VR II and just bought the 28-300VR and absolutely love it. I gave up a little on the wide end but it is way sharper than the 18-200 lens. I would say it is every bit as sharp as my 80-200 f/2.8. I plan on switching to full frame but if they come out with the D400 I may stay DX. Thought about renting the 18-300 so I could compare them. With the Nikon rebate going on right now that is a awesome deal on the 18-300.
  • Dredden85Dredden85 Posts: 365Member
    @mustangdaren, are you on a D7000 body?
    D7000, 18-200VRII | 50 1.8G | SB-900
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,510Moderator
    @Donald: with all the bodies you have, you never need to change lenses again! :P
    Always learning.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,445Member
    I do enjoy playing with different bodies as much as I enjoy playing with different lenses. There are some strengths and some weaknesses in each of them. I like to try different things as you can see from my postings. Different flavors, you know. Like enjoying a variety of food rather than eating the same meal all the time. I even pull out my D70, D3100 and D5100 once in a while just to see if I can produce good results within their limitations. Not every image requires a D800 shot in RAW. I guess you can say I am as interested in the use of various equipment as I am in using various photographic subjects or techniques. I notice some people here tend to pretty much stick to one style or subject matter. That is ok; but so is my wide ranging interest in equipment, subjects and styles.
  • mustangdarenmustangdaren Posts: 27Member
    @mustangdaren, are you on a D7000 body?
    D90

  • Scuderia1Scuderia1 Posts: 82Member
    edited February 2013
    I used to own an 18-300mm with my old D5100. I had just started getting into photography and wanted a "walk-around" lens. Depending upon how serious you are about photography as a hobby, depends how much you need this lens. If you have a set budget and do not like changing lens on a vacation: this may be the lens for you! At the current Nikon rebate price: it is very tempting! I only used this lens a hand full of times before I upgraded to an FX body. When I did, I was able to talk Adorama into a resale value of $600 and traded it in for a 300mm f/4.

    I personally think Nasim Mansurov's critique of the lens was a bit harsh. It does acquire autofocus reasonably well in low-light situations. Here is one of my favourite pictures with the 18-300mm (D5100 body)

    DSC_0469 - Version 2
    D5100 | 1/160 sec | f/5.6 | ISO 800 | 300mm
    Post edited by Scuderia1 on
    Nikon D800 | Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g | Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikkor 300mm f/4 (+Nikon TC1.4x)
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,317Member
    edited February 2013
    @ Scuderia1 - Just got my 70-300. If I can get anything like you got there with the 18-300, I'll be a happy camper. :D
    Post edited by dissent on
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    edited February 2013
    I own the 18-300mm, which I plan to use on my D7000 as a travel kit. For wide angle, I intend to buy either the Tokina 11-16mm or the 12-24mm, but I haven't decided on which one. When I bought my D800 last year, I expected to sell the D7000 and use my Panasonic G3 MFT camera as my normal travel gear. However, after a year of fussing around with the best of the MFT lenses, I decided to keep the D7000 and buy the 18-300mm lens just for travel. Contrary to what you might read on one of the MFT forums, the combination of the D7000 + 18-300mm provides a wide range in FL with LESS weight and LESS bulk than a comparable MFT system, which would need two lenses to provide the same effective FL coverage, e.g., by pairing the Panasonic 14-140mm + 100-300mm (both of which I own) with a small MFT body like the G3. At the long end, the 18-300mm lens may not be optically as good as the 100-300mm, but the APS-C sensor is better for the kind of photography I do than the MFT sensor, so there's a tradeoff. Regardless of what any studio tests or MTF curves indicate about the optical performance of the 18-300mm lens, I'd prefer to evaluate it myself by taking actual pictures and then judging it against what I think is acceptable for travel photography....one requirement of which is that the camera not get in the way of my enjoying the sightseeing and the whole rest of the travel experience. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, my Panasonic FZ200 superzoom does as good a job satisfying part of my travel needs as does my G3 with a lot less fuss, so as far as I'm concerned the MFT system is being pressured from both sides of the sensor-dimension scale, from below by excellent smaller sensor cameras like the FZ200 and from above by APS-C cameras like the Sony NEX and DSLRs like the D5200.
    Post edited by BabaGanoush on
  • BrucePhotographyBrucePhotography Posts: 40Member
    I like the 18-200 on my D7100 better than my copy of the 18-300. I don't believe that an $800+ lens could be called a kit lens. The 18-105 that came with my D7100 was only $300 and that is a kit lens. Sharp in the center and soft everywhere else (in general). I find the 18-300 just too heavy for the little D7100 but the 18-200 is very well balanced for the D7100. The combination is similar to my love for the Canon 60D and their 18-200. Very comparable except for the tilt screen and the lower MP and of course all the great Nikon features that Nikon left into the camera. I also have a 28-300 fx lens for my D800/E cameras but that doesn't get much use. I recently did a 300mm test and I was surprised about how good the 70-300mm lens came out. Not as good as the excellent 300mm F4, but really quite close even to the new 80-400 (at 300mm). Maybe I just got a great 70-300mm copy....
  • Dredden85Dredden85 Posts: 365Member
    Digging up this thread for comparison of the New Nikon 18-300mm 3.5-6.3G to old 18-300mm3.5-5.6G. I noticed the new 18-300mm is lighter, less elements and groups, 7 blade diaphram, 67mm filter and $100 less. But what is the purpose of producing this nearly identical lens?
    D7000, 18-200VRII | 50 1.8G | SB-900
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited April 2014
    Most likely to make it more travel friendly. It is also physically smaller, if I read the specs correctly. Apparently the other version will remain available, although for how long is questionable.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • Dredden85Dredden85 Posts: 365Member
    Old 3.3 in. x 4.7 in., 29.3 oz
    New 3 in. x 3.8 in., 19.4 oz
    (According to NikonUSA.com)
    It is smaller and 10oz lighter
    D7000, 18-200VRII | 50 1.8G | SB-900
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,185Member
    Perfect for me.. ! will be selling my 18-140 and 18-200 !
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

Sign In or Register to comment.