Is an 18-300mm upgrade neccessary ?

Hey everyone , what's up !?

At the time I unboxed my new 18-200mm nikkor lens .. the successor of it which is 18-300mm was announced ..
What's on my mind now is the following : Is upgrading my lens to it's successor necessary or a waste of money ?





Thanks







​

 

If you need or would use that focal length I guess it would be necessary, I would want the 18-300 if I were to choose between the 2.

 

Your original post seems to suffer from what we in the field of logic call a false dichotomy. Your post insinuates that this purchasing an 18-300mm ultra zoom to replace your 18-200mm ultra zoom must either be necessary, or a waste of money.

These are two extreme options. It is highly unlikely that it is either of them. A waste means no use for the money spent whatsoever. Obviously there is some use, you get an extra 100mm. However, it is far from necessary either. The world will not implode if you don't have 200-300mm available on your camera at all times.

The answer to your question is, in many ways, simple, but only you can answer it. YOu just need to ask yourself, how often do you quickly need to go from shooting wide angle shots to telephoto shots in the 200-300mm range? Is this need worth the amount you would have to pay to you?

the 18-300mm will be a good bit heavier, from what I've read but is rumored to have roughly the same image quality as the 18-200mm.

 

Not to sound too harsh I hope!

But who cares which you own? They both fall into the category of being boring, dull and mediocre lenses. I wouldn't want either, they are very very similar apart from the fact one has 100 extra MM of focal length.

But that is not to say that you can't make great images with these lenses.... Bob Krist seems to do OK with his 18-200.

 

nope, both lenses essentialy turn your awesome DSLR into a $600-700 super zoom, and the lens actually costs more than most of the super zooms.
Also 200-300 is not THAT big of a range, especially on DX. For the same price you can get a beautiful 17-55 2.8

i guess in the end it all comes down to how sharp the 18-200 is compared to the 18-300 in the usable ranges, i never bothered to look because neither of the lenses intrigue me.

 

You can of course sell the 18-200mm DX convenience superzoom and get the 18-300mm DX convenience superzoom instead.

Just realize that the 18-300mm is probably even worse than the 18-200mm in respect to optical performance.

Personally I think the 18-105mm kit lens is as much of a convenience zoom as anyone would ever need.

Tip: good zooms have the same minimal aperture at every focal length, like the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 70-200mm f/2.8.

 

well, except for the fact that the few who have actually tried the 18-300mm say they're virtually identical in terms of optical performance. I have no idea why you constantly speak in generalities about lenses you've obviously never used. Yes, what you're saying holds true over a broad, sweeping generalization. However, this isn't a 'general' question, not only have you not tried them, you haven't even read any of the reviews about it, ie you're totally guessing?

At the very least please say things like "well, it might be the case that the 18-300mm isn't as good optically as the 18-200mm, but I'd have no idea, as I've never tried them or even read a review about it." N00bs on here have a really hard time differentiating between people who have tried the gear they're talking about and those who are just repeating vague generalities that may or may not even be applicable in the specific case here. Just throwing these sorts of statements around with no regard or disclaimer is irresponsible and leads to confusion and causes a lot of people to have the view that people on here don't know what they're talking about and that you get just as much bad info as good info here.

 

(a) Bored at work with nothing to do (again).
(b) Everyone else was so negative so I decided to be a bit more positive and constructive.

 

well, that was fine until you started talking about how the 18-300mm was worse optically, without having any idea whether or not that might be true, and in spite of what the handful of people who have actually used it have said.

 

Try to remember that someone might spend hard earned money based on something you said, assuming you knew what you were talking about.
If you have no direct experience with the product, say so - or better yet, say nothing.
There are already more than enough of parrots in the forums.

 

If anybody's decision to spend their hard earned money is based solely on verbiage seen anywhere on TPF, well more fool them. Not to say that all is BS on here but there is a lot of hearsay and rumour passed as fact.

 

I didnt passed rumors, though, I simply stated the general rule that the more focal length you try to put into a zoom, the more optical problems you will introduce. I dont think I implied I would know anything else beyond that.