- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,176
- Reaction score
- 1,654
- Location
- Wisconsin, United States
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Well, I've had my new 18-300 for a week or so, now, and I've drawn a few conclusions. Just a small caveat, however, I am NOT a professional, NOR is this a professional review. These are MY experiences with the lens, and the conclusions I have drawn from them. The primary focus of my review, is also comparing it to the kit lenses it replaces. So, with that, let me begin..
Just a little background on why I bought this lens. My intent was to replace my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I waned a one lens solution for a walk around lens. The extra 100mm is what sold me on this lens over the 18-200. I bought this lens with the understanding it is a compromise lens. I'm compromising IQ for convenience. I often attend family/friend gatherings, or go to events such as airshows, where I'm not intending on getting creative, but rather will be mostly taking snapshots, and therefore, am ok with compromising some IQ for convenience. I wanted to be able to carry one lens, and leave all the other equipment/lenses behind. If I want to get creative, I plan ahead and bring better lenses.. So that's why, now onto the lens..
As I would expect, the lens construction is excellent. It feels tight, sturdy, and well built. It is heavy, about the same weight as my 105mm f/2.8. Now, I'm 6'5", 240lbs, so it's no problem for me to wield a larger, heavier lens around. Someone with a small frame or smaller arms may not like the weight hanging on their neck or may have difficulty supporting the lens for longer periods of time, unsupported. I personally don't have any issues with the weight. In fact, I prefer a heavier lens, because weight of the lens allows me to hold it steadier. When zoomed out fully, it remains tight and sturdy. I'm sure that will loosen up over time, though. I also don't get any lens creep, yet, but I still use the lock to keep it at 18mm when packing it or travelling around. So, overall, for construction and ergonomics, I would say the lens is excellent. The addition of the focus scale is also a welcome improvement over the kit lenses. Here are some comparison photos of the lens.
When compared to the kit lenses.
Same, but at full extension.
It is actually very comparable to my 105mm macro in both size and weight.
Lens performance is the next category to tackle. Focusing is a little slow if focusing from one end of the focus range to the other when compared to the kit lenses. I think in large part due to the larger range of travel the focusing ring has. It does, however, hit focus accurately, and rarely hunts for focus, which is much better than the kit lenses. It is faster to focus on the wide end than the telephoto end. So, as for focusing, other than the slightly slow focusing, it performs very well. Better than the kit lenses, in my opinion.
One high point, is the VR is superb! Much better than either of the kit lenses. Especially when at the telephoto end. Once it catches, it holds the image rock steady, even when hand held. The addition of the 'normal' and 'active' VR modes is nice, too. I like to pan, and it is helpful for that.
The minimum focusing distance was also pleasingly close at the telephoto end. At the wide end, the 18-55 focused closer than the 18-300, but at minimum focusing distance, they produce virtually the same reproduction ratio (according to Nikon). At the telephoto end, though, the 18-300 focuses much closer than the 55-200, and has a higher reproduction ratio. For the less technical out there, it basically means the 18-300, at the telephoto end, can get closer to your subject, making it larger in the photo, than the 55-200, but holds no such advantage over the 18-55.
When comparing the IQ to my kit lenses, I was a little disappointed. The 18-300 is a little sharper, at almost any zoom range and aperture, than either kit lens, but that's about the end of the improvements.. I noticed the kit lenses reproduced color better, but the 18-300 does seem to have better saturation. The colors from the 18-300 also had a very noticeably warmer tone over the kit lenses. Now, not a huge deal, because shooting in RAW it can be corrected in post, but someone who only shoots jpeg and maybe doesn't PP, might get better results with the kit lenses.
Next, is distortion.. Though it's not horrible, it is much better controlled in the kit lenses. The barrel distortion at the wide end is more prominent in the 18-300 than in the 18-55. In LR, it took a correction value of +12 to correct the barrel distortion on the 18-55 lens, and +17 for the 18-300 at the same focal length.. A little disappointing, but I guess what can you expect from a super zoom.. Pincushion distortion was also more prominent at the telephoto end on the 18-300 than on the 55-200. Again, fixable in post, but it required more to correct it, and you're loosing more around the edges of your image to do it.
When using flash, I noticed the OCF only causes a shadow from the lens hood when shooting at the telephoto end (above 200mm), at distances closer than a couple feet. So, if you're trying to use flash to light an object at or near minimum focusing distance, you will probably get a shadow using OCF (camera dependent). However, when using my SB700, there was no shadow, even when all the way to 300mm, and at minimum focusing distance.
Lastly, and this is super frustrating, is the zoom range. According to Nikon's specs, the 18-300 has a 5deg 20min angle of view at 300mm, and the 55-200 has an 8deg angle of view at 200mm. So, that means it should 'zoom' farther than the 200mm end of the 55-200, right? Nope...at least not in practice. Now, I'm no engineer, and maybe there is a reason for it. Perhaps the reproduction ratio comes into play, Or maybe the focusing distance affects it, I don't know. Or, maybe I wasn't performing a fair test, but here were my results. When zoomed in to 300mm, it did not actually reproduce the subject any larger than the 55-200. I tested it at distances between 6' and 50', getting the same results. Here are two photos to demonstrate what I'm referring to.
***Edit*** As was pointed out, some telephoto zooms don't get close to their longer focal lengths until focusing farther out. I also misspoke originally, I was testing it at distances from 6' to about 30', not 50'. Once I tested it beyond 30', I started seeing a reversal of the effect, and it did get closer to it's 300mm range, and was zooming farther than the 55-200. However, it still doesn't help me, because I'm often looking for that extra reach at closer distances.***
This is a photo of a painting taken with the 55-200, at 200mm, from about 8 feet away.
Didn't move the tripod, switched lenses, and had to zoom all the way to 300mm on the 18-300 to get this photo, which is not any closer than the 55-200 at 200mm. Also, notice the warmer tones I mentioned above.
Same thing here. This was the 18-300 at 300mm at a distance of about 4 feet.
Same distance, with the 55-200 at 200mm. All logic tells me these should be opposite.. :scratch: Now, these two photos of the book are even more extreme, so I'm guessing the focusing distance has come into play here. Perhaps making it worse. But at distances of about 30', I was still seeing the same basic affect.
This was very frustrating to discover, because I feel like I wasted my money to get the extra 100mm of zoom, when it doesn't appear to actually give me any extra zoom! :banghead: Now, I admit, my test may not take something into account that I'm not aware of, so if someone has another test I can perform to test the zoom, I'd be happy to try it, and post the results. This in part, begs the questions, which lens is correct? Is the 55-200 actually 'zooming' farther than it should, or is the 18-300 not 'zooming' as far as is should? I don't know, but perhaps someone else with more expertise could shed some light on it..
In conclusion, it's an excellent lens for what it is. Use my review, but draw your own conclusions. It's clearly not a gold ring lens, but if it were, it would probably have to be 10" in diameter, 3' long, and weigh 34 lbs... I, personally, don't feel like it has anything to offer over the less expensive 18-200, especially because the extra 100mm of zoom doesn't actually appear to be there... When comparing it to my dad's 18-200, I also feel like it had about the same, but not any better IQ to offer. You get the addition of the normal and active VR modes over the 18-200, but I'm not sure that's worth $250. I think I would have been better off buying the 18-200, and putting the extra money toward filters or some other accessory. In fact, I may sell it and do just that. So, take my review for what it is, not professional, not clinical, but rather my experiences thus far. If anyone would like me to perform any tests, I'd be happy to see what I can do.
Here was one random shot I took with it that I thought turned out pretty well. 300mm, f/5.6, 1/60th w/SB700 lighting the subject. It was actually a funny story. I was at work, helping my Sgt. jump her squad car because the battery died, when the hawk pounced on something inside a pile of aluminum cans inside our impound lot, and scared itself with the noise it made. It then fluttered up to the fence, about 8 feet away from us, I assume to regain it's composure... Fortunately I had my camera in the trunk of my car. We looked at each other, wondering how we can move without scaring it off. So, she came up with the brilliant idea to make 'hawk' sounds while I scurried away to get my camera.. So, there we were, two uniformed officers, one making bird noises and the other scurrying away to get a camera... Not my proudest moment.. Either way, she must speak 'hawk' cause it stuck around...
Just a little background on why I bought this lens. My intent was to replace my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I waned a one lens solution for a walk around lens. The extra 100mm is what sold me on this lens over the 18-200. I bought this lens with the understanding it is a compromise lens. I'm compromising IQ for convenience. I often attend family/friend gatherings, or go to events such as airshows, where I'm not intending on getting creative, but rather will be mostly taking snapshots, and therefore, am ok with compromising some IQ for convenience. I wanted to be able to carry one lens, and leave all the other equipment/lenses behind. If I want to get creative, I plan ahead and bring better lenses.. So that's why, now onto the lens..
As I would expect, the lens construction is excellent. It feels tight, sturdy, and well built. It is heavy, about the same weight as my 105mm f/2.8. Now, I'm 6'5", 240lbs, so it's no problem for me to wield a larger, heavier lens around. Someone with a small frame or smaller arms may not like the weight hanging on their neck or may have difficulty supporting the lens for longer periods of time, unsupported. I personally don't have any issues with the weight. In fact, I prefer a heavier lens, because weight of the lens allows me to hold it steadier. When zoomed out fully, it remains tight and sturdy. I'm sure that will loosen up over time, though. I also don't get any lens creep, yet, but I still use the lock to keep it at 18mm when packing it or travelling around. So, overall, for construction and ergonomics, I would say the lens is excellent. The addition of the focus scale is also a welcome improvement over the kit lenses. Here are some comparison photos of the lens.
When compared to the kit lenses.
Same, but at full extension.
It is actually very comparable to my 105mm macro in both size and weight.
Lens performance is the next category to tackle. Focusing is a little slow if focusing from one end of the focus range to the other when compared to the kit lenses. I think in large part due to the larger range of travel the focusing ring has. It does, however, hit focus accurately, and rarely hunts for focus, which is much better than the kit lenses. It is faster to focus on the wide end than the telephoto end. So, as for focusing, other than the slightly slow focusing, it performs very well. Better than the kit lenses, in my opinion.
One high point, is the VR is superb! Much better than either of the kit lenses. Especially when at the telephoto end. Once it catches, it holds the image rock steady, even when hand held. The addition of the 'normal' and 'active' VR modes is nice, too. I like to pan, and it is helpful for that.
The minimum focusing distance was also pleasingly close at the telephoto end. At the wide end, the 18-55 focused closer than the 18-300, but at minimum focusing distance, they produce virtually the same reproduction ratio (according to Nikon). At the telephoto end, though, the 18-300 focuses much closer than the 55-200, and has a higher reproduction ratio. For the less technical out there, it basically means the 18-300, at the telephoto end, can get closer to your subject, making it larger in the photo, than the 55-200, but holds no such advantage over the 18-55.
When comparing the IQ to my kit lenses, I was a little disappointed. The 18-300 is a little sharper, at almost any zoom range and aperture, than either kit lens, but that's about the end of the improvements.. I noticed the kit lenses reproduced color better, but the 18-300 does seem to have better saturation. The colors from the 18-300 also had a very noticeably warmer tone over the kit lenses. Now, not a huge deal, because shooting in RAW it can be corrected in post, but someone who only shoots jpeg and maybe doesn't PP, might get better results with the kit lenses.
Next, is distortion.. Though it's not horrible, it is much better controlled in the kit lenses. The barrel distortion at the wide end is more prominent in the 18-300 than in the 18-55. In LR, it took a correction value of +12 to correct the barrel distortion on the 18-55 lens, and +17 for the 18-300 at the same focal length.. A little disappointing, but I guess what can you expect from a super zoom.. Pincushion distortion was also more prominent at the telephoto end on the 18-300 than on the 55-200. Again, fixable in post, but it required more to correct it, and you're loosing more around the edges of your image to do it.
When using flash, I noticed the OCF only causes a shadow from the lens hood when shooting at the telephoto end (above 200mm), at distances closer than a couple feet. So, if you're trying to use flash to light an object at or near minimum focusing distance, you will probably get a shadow using OCF (camera dependent). However, when using my SB700, there was no shadow, even when all the way to 300mm, and at minimum focusing distance.
Lastly, and this is super frustrating, is the zoom range. According to Nikon's specs, the 18-300 has a 5deg 20min angle of view at 300mm, and the 55-200 has an 8deg angle of view at 200mm. So, that means it should 'zoom' farther than the 200mm end of the 55-200, right? Nope...at least not in practice. Now, I'm no engineer, and maybe there is a reason for it. Perhaps the reproduction ratio comes into play, Or maybe the focusing distance affects it, I don't know. Or, maybe I wasn't performing a fair test, but here were my results. When zoomed in to 300mm, it did not actually reproduce the subject any larger than the 55-200. I tested it at distances between 6' and 50', getting the same results. Here are two photos to demonstrate what I'm referring to.
***Edit*** As was pointed out, some telephoto zooms don't get close to their longer focal lengths until focusing farther out. I also misspoke originally, I was testing it at distances from 6' to about 30', not 50'. Once I tested it beyond 30', I started seeing a reversal of the effect, and it did get closer to it's 300mm range, and was zooming farther than the 55-200. However, it still doesn't help me, because I'm often looking for that extra reach at closer distances.***
This is a photo of a painting taken with the 55-200, at 200mm, from about 8 feet away.
Didn't move the tripod, switched lenses, and had to zoom all the way to 300mm on the 18-300 to get this photo, which is not any closer than the 55-200 at 200mm. Also, notice the warmer tones I mentioned above.
Same thing here. This was the 18-300 at 300mm at a distance of about 4 feet.
Same distance, with the 55-200 at 200mm. All logic tells me these should be opposite.. :scratch: Now, these two photos of the book are even more extreme, so I'm guessing the focusing distance has come into play here. Perhaps making it worse. But at distances of about 30', I was still seeing the same basic affect.
This was very frustrating to discover, because I feel like I wasted my money to get the extra 100mm of zoom, when it doesn't appear to actually give me any extra zoom! :banghead: Now, I admit, my test may not take something into account that I'm not aware of, so if someone has another test I can perform to test the zoom, I'd be happy to try it, and post the results. This in part, begs the questions, which lens is correct? Is the 55-200 actually 'zooming' farther than it should, or is the 18-300 not 'zooming' as far as is should? I don't know, but perhaps someone else with more expertise could shed some light on it..
In conclusion, it's an excellent lens for what it is. Use my review, but draw your own conclusions. It's clearly not a gold ring lens, but if it were, it would probably have to be 10" in diameter, 3' long, and weigh 34 lbs... I, personally, don't feel like it has anything to offer over the less expensive 18-200, especially because the extra 100mm of zoom doesn't actually appear to be there... When comparing it to my dad's 18-200, I also feel like it had about the same, but not any better IQ to offer. You get the addition of the normal and active VR modes over the 18-200, but I'm not sure that's worth $250. I think I would have been better off buying the 18-200, and putting the extra money toward filters or some other accessory. In fact, I may sell it and do just that. So, take my review for what it is, not professional, not clinical, but rather my experiences thus far. If anyone would like me to perform any tests, I'd be happy to see what I can do.
Here was one random shot I took with it that I thought turned out pretty well. 300mm, f/5.6, 1/60th w/SB700 lighting the subject. It was actually a funny story. I was at work, helping my Sgt. jump her squad car because the battery died, when the hawk pounced on something inside a pile of aluminum cans inside our impound lot, and scared itself with the noise it made. It then fluttered up to the fence, about 8 feet away from us, I assume to regain it's composure... Fortunately I had my camera in the trunk of my car. We looked at each other, wondering how we can move without scaring it off. So, she came up with the brilliant idea to make 'hawk' sounds while I scurried away to get my camera.. So, there we were, two uniformed officers, one making bird noises and the other scurrying away to get a camera... Not my proudest moment.. Either way, she must speak 'hawk' cause it stuck around...
Last edited:
