18-300mm vr: yea or nay?

[hamlet]

This lens is about to go into cheaper sale in exactly 17H. Is this extremely versatile lens worth getting? My only criteria is lens quality. Quality above everything.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-f%2F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html

 

[gconnoyer]

Nay.

IMO, Those lenses target the more mainstream "I just use my camera to take pictures of stuff" group.
Typically, the more broad the range, the lower the quality because of all of the extra glass and moving parts. I'm not saying the pictures will look terrible, BUT for $1000 there are much better options. The closer to a prime lens you can get, the better the quality. A $200 50mm 1.8G would outperform that lens by a mile in quality.

What lenses do you have now?

 

[bc_steve]

If quality is your biggest priority, don't get this lens. You compromise quality for a huge zoom range.

 

[mikeyidaho]

If lens/image quality is top priority? Never been too impressed with the so called superzooms, they're never known for being top quality, top for convenience and versatility yes. I stick to primes for the most part, best image quality for the money normally.

Sent from my Verizon Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2

 

[hamlet]

So throw it back into the fires of Mount Doom? :shock:

 

[480sparky]

"Superzooms" excel at doing everything with superb mediocrity.

 

[hamlet]

Nay.

IMO, Those lenses target the more mainstream "I just use my camera to take pictures of stuff" group.
Typically, the more broad the range, the lower the quality because of all of the extra glass and moving parts. I'm not saying the pictures will look terrible, BUT for $1000 there are much better options. The closer to a prime lens you can get, the better the quality. A $200 50mm 1.8G would outperform that lens by a mile in quality.

What lenses do you have now?

Its smaller brother 18-55.

 

[DarkShadow]

If you want a super zoom, I would go with Tamron 18-270 VC PZD. You will save a lot of money and most likely have a mail in rebate. Even if Nikon has better IQ its not enough to justify the more then double the price hike IMHO.

 

[goodguy]

"Superzooms" excel at doing everything with superb mediocrity.

I have never heard a more perfect description, true poetry :mrgreen:

Dont bother getting this lens,
From your list I see you already have the 24-70mm and 70-300mm VR so why bother ?
The 70-300mm VR is much sharper and while not as flexible its far better.

 

[bc_steve]

"Superzooms" excel at doing everything with superb mediocrity.

I have never heard a more perfect description, true poetry :mrgreen:

Dont bother getting this lens,
From your list I see you already have the 24-70mm and 70-300mm VR so why bother ?
The 70-300mm VR is much sharper and while not as flexible its far better.

That's what he wishes he had. Save up for those instead!

 

[manaheim]

What they said.

And the mount doom comment made me guffaw.

 

[PaulWog]

This lens is about to go into cheaper sale in exactly 17H. Is this extremely versatile lens worth getting? My only criteria is lens quality. Quality above everything.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR | 18-300mm Lenses

I still think that you really want a quality lens. It seems you want something that you'll never feel like upgrading from ever. The 24-70mm f2.8 Nikon lens might be your best bet. The only downside to the lens is the lack of VR.

Now something to note about the 35mm 1.8G is it has inferior focus compared to the 50mm 1.8G (I believe). At night, I'm not sure how accurately it will focus if you're shooting at f1.8. It's an excellent lens, and I might buy it again (mine is defective and needs warranty servicing), but there's something to think about.

I'm sure I'm just confusing you even more, because I have some advice to follow up with: You're over-complicating things. You've got lots to learn, and you need to be shooting and learning one or two things at a time. I think you just need to pick a lens and start shooting with it. This is my experience: originally I preferred only mild telephoto shots, or telephoto shots (65mm+ on DX). I was new to photography, and longer focal lengths were more forgiving, easier to frame, and usually came out with nice bokeh due to the focal length. I didn't know how to (or was afraid) to frame a shot with a 35mm, or at 16mm, or 24mm on my DX camera; it seemed like those shots came out looking like something off of my Galaxy S4 camera. I didn't know what I was doing exactly. But now I absolutely love those focal lengths, because I've come to learn how to use them. The reason why I'm saying this is because you mentioned you know what focal lengths you want: I would like to argue that a beginner might think they know what they want to do with photography, but you'll never truly know until you start shooting and experiencing photography. That's why you can't go wrong with a good fast prime lens, or a good fast zoom lens (anything quality, anything fast). No matter what you pick, if you're passionate about photography, will end up servicing you very well. Unless if you specifically want to go shooting birds, just about any lens somewhere in the 16mm to 200mm range would do you well. That means you could pick up a 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8G, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f2.8, 28mm 1.8G, 17-55mm f2.8, 35mm 1.8G, or a great number of any other lenses. Landscapes aren't always shot with ultra-wide lenses: Some people shoot landscape shots with the 70-200mm (I remember seeing an absolutely brilliant photo shot of a shallow tide at an exotic-looking beach front that was shot from the air and stitched together from multiple shots using the 70-200mm f2.8); that's just an example.

You really sound like you want a lens that you can drool over. Maybe the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII is for you. It offers absolutely everything you need: VR, fast lens, GREAT resale value, no better lens in its class, etc. If the bank is broken, then just pick up a cheap 35mm 1.8G as your quicker normal lens. Or maybe get an ultra wide lens. Or maybe get your normal zoom next after that (maybe complete the trinity with the 24-70).

I know that the 70-300mm VR is on your list, and maybe that's going to be better for you. At 240mm and up, it's noticeably softer. At times I actually will shoot at 200-240mm as opposed to 240-300mm, and intentionally crop the shot, because with a crop I get a sharper image than with a normal shot at the longer focal length. Think of the 70-300mm VR as a 70-220mm lens (give or take) with an additional 80mm if you absolutely need it. But note that 200-300mm (the difference) is very little on DX, and even less on FX. 100mm seems like a lot, but it's not once you get to this length of telephoto (and if you need that 300mm reach so badly, you'll generally be wanting something like a 200-500mm zoom or whatever those super long zooms are... you'd need a longer lens). Besides, the 70-200 can take a teleconverter to make it into a 105-300 or whatever if you want it to go there (but it will slow the aperture down).

Anyway, I'm trying to cater my advice to your needs. Either go big, or go small. Get the 35mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8G now, or get a nice expensive lens now. You can't go wrong either way if you stick with photography. Resale values are great as well, so if you learn and just don't enjoy the stuff, then resell it. If you have the cash in the bank account, think of a 24-70 or 70-200 as just storing your cash in a different way. The resale on those lenses is so high that you could use them for half a year, or a year, or 2 years, or however long, and then turn around and resell the lens and end up only having spend a few hundred dollars or less in the net of things. The same is true with the 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G right now: You can sell those things for 75%+ of their purchase cost if you buy them at $200-ish.

 

[hamlet]

Impeccable advice. However, there are factors you are not aware of. The convenience of the 35mm and the fact that Nikon could come out with a VR version of the 24-70. But you are right about me wanting lenses i wouldn't replace for decades to come.

 

[PaulWog]

Impeccable advice. However, there are factors you are not aware of. The convenience of the 35mm and the fact that Nikon could come out with a VR version of the 24-70. But you are right about me wanting lenses i wouldn't replace for decades to come.

I'm perfectly aware, considering I mentioned the 24-70mm doesn't have VR Here's the thing: Anything will have a reduced resale value as it gets older. New stuff filters in, older stuff filters out. The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is touted by many as one of the greatest lenses out there. If a new 24-70mm f2.8 comes out with VR, does that automatically make all the old ones worse? Nope. It would just mean there's a new one with VR. That's why I pointed out the lack of VR: If you want it and feel it's pretty important, then hold off on the 24-70 for that very reason.

The one lens I can think of that you wouldn't ever need to replace is the 70-200 f2.8 VRII. It's just too good. The only thing you might end up getting that overlaps it is a quicker prime lens (ex. those who have the 70-200 f2.8 might also have a fast 135mm, or 85mm, or 105mm, or whatever). First, for a shallower DoF / better bokeh at the focal length, and second for the size & weight reduction. If you want a lens that makes your shots look good from the get-go, the 70-200 f2.8 is as close as you'll get to that "lens doing it for you" feeling; do note that your skill is the most important factor though.

I'm very similar to you in my wants: I want stuff that lasts. I want a collection. I'm a tech geek and my lens purchases are just as much functional purchases (to get shots done that I want to do) as they are just me adding to a collection that I can drool over and feel content about. I originally regretted my 16-85mm VR purchase, however now I'm very glad about it. If I had more money, I would take the purchase back in order to stick to FX-only material (since the 16-85mm doesn't have great resale potential), but I don't have that much extra money to spend -- so I love the lens a lot. I don't regret for a second my 35mm 1.8G purchase, aside from the fact that its focus is wonky and I need to get it fixed (so I do regret the purchase of mine in particular, but when it does focus properly it's a beast of a lens). My 70-300 VR lens is just excellent and I don't regret it for a second: I'd love love love to have the 70-200 f2.8, but the 70-300 VR is excellent (the picture quality is just so sharp and good for the price). Finally, the 85mm 1.8G is the best lens I have... it's hands down mind blowing. So anyway, if I could return my D5200 and 16-85mm for full cash back and if I had extra cash, I'd definitely go with a D610 and I'd probably get myself a 24-70 image stabilized Tamron or Sigma lens, as well as a 28mm f1.8 prime (I'd want the 24mm f1.4 but it's 2k). I wouldn't really care to go wider (I mean sometimes I'd want to), but it just wouldn't be worth the price for how little I'd need to go wider. That's what I'd do.

If I were you (and you want to stick with your current camera), the way to go is the 35mm 1.8G absolutely (it's versatile and cheap). I'd do that and stop right there with any spending. If you do like the idea of the 28mm 1.8G, then you could go for the 50mm 1.8G as your first lens instead. Again, if you have lots of cash at hand and want the latest, greatest, most amazing lens, go out and get yourself a 70-200 f2.8 VRII, but you'd want to get a 35mm 1.8G alongside that anyway (or a 28mm 1.8G). The 70-200 f2.8 VRII can't really have much of a successor... the VR is already extremely good, the lens is already sharp across the board... it's pretty hard to top it in the near future.

 

[hamlet]

The 24-70 is the lens of choice for me above anything else, I'm just giving myself a long window to let any favoritism or hype die out so i can be as objective as possible because I am meticulous about these things. The 70-200 is a lens in a class of its own. however, i am not convinced that i need it.