Choosing an 18-300 mm lens

Readeramm

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
3
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I am a hobbyist photographer for 35 years - more interested in shooting than editing. I travel regularly around the globe and like to shoot landscapes, wildlife, cities, etc. For a long time i have gone with an 18-200mm Nikon f3.5-5.6 lens which has been a great choice for many years. I am planning a trip to South Africa this fall and I'd like to replace this aging lens with an 18-300mm to bring the wildlife in closer while still allowing me to travel light with a single lens.

I'm considering the Nikon f3.5-5.6 18-300, the Nikon f3.5-6.3 18-300 and the Tamron f3.5-6.3 16-300. I'm not sure that I'll be able to tell the difference between the 2 Nikons with the exception of the significant additional price and weight of the 5.6.

I've always used Nikon lenses and always thought that Tamron was an off-brand. As I've looked around I've learned that this is also a quality product. At $499 this appears to be a bargain but I'm hesitant to take the leap.

I've also read lots of reviews about the poor quality of photos shot with 18-300 lenses in general which makes me even more confused as to which direction I should go.

Help!
Anne
 
Zoom lenses are a compromise in image quality. The best image quality in a zoom comes from two things. Quality of the materials/build and shorter focal range differences. If image quality is your main concern and want zooms then you pay for it. Even in middle of the road consumer glass shorter focal range differences will usually produce superior image quality.

The attractiveness of the mega zoom lens is the thought of only carrying around one lens. That if great for convenience, but poor for image quality. You have to decide what is more important to you, Image Quality or convenience.

Of course you could consider renting a lens for the trip: LensRentals.com - Rent a Nikon 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR II
 
A couple to choose from by Nikon: Nikon 18-300mm VR Review
(this page has the link to the NEWER one, the f/3.5~6.3 VR model at Nikon 18-300mm VR Review) and a link to this three-lens comparison of the 18-200 vs 28-300 vs 18-300 at Nikon 18-200 vs 28-300 vs 18-300

As Ken mentions, the new 18-300VR weighs 10 ounces less than the earlier 18-300 model. The new lens works only on DX Nikons.

These new superzooms with 3 ED glass and 3 aspherical elements, are better than earlier 20- and 15-year-old designs which typically had no ED glass, and no aspherical elements.

This lens uses 67mm filter threads, which is what I personally have felt, for a decade, represents what Nikon itself considers to be its top, or most-desirable serious enthusiast zoom lenses. Nikon has done this for decades now: at one time, the 62mm filter lenses were the sought-after models; that changed around 2002. if you look through the Nikkor lens lineup, you'll be able to spot the 67mm zooms as being "desirable" for a certain type of customer. You will not see this 67mm filter/lenscap idea in Nikon literature, but only in practice.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think the new, smaller, lighter Nikkor f/3.5~6.3 is the lens to choose. Of course, the price savings of the Tamron do make it very attractive. I'm not sure how it stacks up against the Nikkor, which is a second-generation refinement of the earlier 3-ED and 3-Aspherical element design, and that is one thing about Nikkor lenses: as they refine a lens design, they tend to improve it, and as Thom Hogan has mentioned this month, Nikon has been making major, solid improvements in their lenses for the past few years, with real, significant improvements in lens performance. I would point to the new G-series primes for example, and their newer f/4 "pro" zoom designs. A good deal of this lens improvement company-wide is due to the fact that sensors have leaped from 12 to 16 MP, and then to 24 on both FX and DX, and to 36MP on FX--so lenses need to be made higher in performance, to match the sensors.

For example; the 28-200 from the film era was not that good, but the subsequent, Digital-era 28-200 was improved, and was a GOOD lens on the 6- and 10-MP APS-C Nikon cameras of the 2004-2007 era. I shot the 28-200 a LOT on the D70, and just last night I was looking through some old images and found a folder of very good photos! I was like, "What lenses shot all these?" So I pulled some EXIF AND I WAS FLABBERGASTED--THE 28-200!!!

Keep in mind, folk wisdom versus actual tests of a lens: these are NOT the old, 20-year-old Tamron 28-200 lenses (Tamron invented the triple-extension barrel idea!). And also, keep in mind--these are slow max-aperture lenses and they are designed for NEW cameras with new firmware to correct lens issues like light fall-off, distortion, and so on on JPEGS. Shoot RAW+ JPEG and set the camera up so that D-lighting is allowed to go as High as is needed. And keep in mind something seldom mentioned: at 16 to 24MP, if you're shooting at f/8, almost any lens is as good as a "pro" zoom, due to diffraction that began wayyy back at f/4.8...with that many MP on a small sensor, a 10-ounce, 25 year-old, $40 28-80mm Nikon lens is almost, or AS good, as a $2,499 24-70 lens that weight three pounds. Seriously. At f/8, Pop Photo tested cheap zooms versus Nikon's pro f/2.8 lenses...optically, at f/8 the pro lenses have basically no discernable advantage in prints made and compared with kit lenses. Same thing now, on the web.

Pro lenses tend to focus faster, and be built more ruggedly, sure. But, again...at f/8, diffraction tends to make lenses much more-equal, and sharpness and corrections are now done in software.
 
Last edited:
Knowing ahead of time that there will be optical compromises with an 18-300 zoom yet still wanting a lens with that range of zoom I bought the Sigma 18-300 about 15 months ago. I use it primarily for motorsports so sharpness was a consideration but not absolutely critical (no matter how good the lens I'm not good enough to keep up with them all the time) and have been pleasantly surprised.

So far it has done an excellent job for me but, as I said, what it's used for makes a difference. I use other lenses when sharpness is important.
 
Thanks for the advice. I think I'll order the newer Nikon from B&H when I have a weekend available to do some heavy shooting for a good test run. I appreciate the help.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top