It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I have the 18-105 already and wanted something with a little more reach.
I'm looking to get the Nikon 18-200 lens for my D7000 however amazons price keeps increasing and I found it last night on Digital Rev for a decent price. Is this a reputable seller?Neil
I haven't heard anything bad about them - check their return policy.
There is another topic discussing these zoom lenses. I believe it is one related to the D7100.
I just feel that I'm limited on focal length with the 18-105
I agree with dissent.
If you're not sure about committing to a purchase on the 18-300mm, you could just rent one for the duration of your trip and see how it works out for you. If it works for you, then you can just buy one later.
Or you could rent the 18-200 for a trial. I shot this Rushmore pic -
at 75mm, ISO 100, f/13. This looks OK to me for sharpness, although out to 200mm things get softer and aperture is f/5.6 max. So maybe the 18-300 would give you a bit more range, depending on what you expect to shoot. I found for much of my vacation shooting I was more at the wide end than the long end.
It is about 250~300g heavier. I would go to a store and ask to test it. Then you can check is the additional weight is something you can deal with or if it is better to get the 18-200mm.
For balance, I'll sometimes attach the SB-700 flash to the top just to make it hang more naturally, even when I know I won't use it, FURTHER adding to the weight.
Not sure if this applies to you, but if you test the two lenses, actually try walking about with both to see how it handles, not just how heavy it is.
I know it s a strange trip, just need to keep weight down and keep things organised and as simple as possible.
I would rather a lens with more range in the wide angle than the 70-300 so I can take some of the overview shots as well.
Going to see if I can find somewhere than has both and try them out and see which may fit my needs the best.
With the current Nikon rebates (if they're active where you are) you can get the 300 on sale for what the 200 normally costs. (Of course, the 200 is proportionately cheaper at the moment, but I try not to let that kind of thing get in the way of my rationalizing.)
I did some side-by-side longish distance comparisons of the two and was pleased with both, but impressed with the extra reach of the 300. All that extra weight wasn't wasted, imho.
They are both cheaper than the horrid superzooms and they are also sharper, faster and ofc much shorter in the long end. Nevertheless, I think you would be better served by either of the aforementioned and a Tamron 75-300 Di VC USD zoom for the long end (ain´t that much more weight to carry and you get better image quality as well). And if you get the 2 off-brand lenses you can probably get them cheaper than either of the superzooms.
I realise that my photo expectations should be lower overal but I simply will not have the time to do lens changes as often as the environment I will be in will be changing would require me to do so.
Continuing off topic, you said you 'feel' that the 18-105 doesn't have enough reach so you don't actually know yet you are about to buy an expensive lens and are also carping about cost. :-))
Analyse your pictures and see what you already do and then buy the best lens for the job at a price that you can manage from a shop that supports this forum. 8-|