New walk around Nikon lens

[Warhorse]

I've been wanting to replace my 18-105 DX for sometime now.

Thanks to America for the "stimmy" money, this has allowed me to purchase a used, in excellent condition 18-300 DX from KEH. I can hardly contain my anticipation of its delivery.

Considered a Tamron 18-400, but decided on the Nikon 18-300 instead, mainly because I only own Nikon glass for my D5600.

 

[RVT1K]

Good for you, have lots of fun with it.

 

[Photo Lady]

looking forward to see the photos.. smart choice..

 

[Timppa]

I have used a Tamron 16-300 on my world travel and despite not being a perfect lens, I was so happy to travel with this one.
Enjoy your new lens

 

[Kiron Kid]

I’m really liking the Nikon 16-85 VR on my D90, and the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR on my D750.

 

[ac12]

For travel and a one-lens kit, the ultra zooms are pretty good.

I keep thinking this is impossible. At least it was when I started. Back then only movie cameras had WIDE zoom ranges, and not even this much. The Nikon 50-300, a 6x zoom, was an unbelievable and EXPENSIVE lens. And anything beyond 10x was like science fiction. Yet today we have the 18-300, a 17x zoom, and the Tamron 18-400, a 22x zoom. And these are not EXPENSIVE lenses. The advance in optical technology is amazing.

 

[Warhorse]

Hmmm... now that I have the 18-300mm on the way to me, should I consider selling my 18-105mm, along with my 70-300mm? Both are Nikon.

 

[SquarePeg]

Thank you for doing your patriotic duty in spending that $ ASAP! Wish I could say I bought some gear but college tuition looms...

 

[Space Face]

No bloody stimmy money for us here.

 

[ac12]

Hmmm... now that I have the 18-300mm on the way to me, should I consider selling my 18-105mm, along with my 70-300mm? Both are Nikon.

Consider size of the 18-105, if it is smaller than the 18-300.
I keep and use my old 18-70, because it is significantly smaller/lighter than my 18-140.

 

[Warhorse]

Hmmm... now that I have the 18-300mm on the way to me, should I consider selling my 18-105mm, along with my 70-300mm? Both are Nikon.

Consider size of the 18-105, if it is smaller than the 18-300.
I keep and use my old 18-70, because it is significantly smaller/lighter than my 18-140.

I just received the 18-300mm yesterday, and have not yet mounted it to my camera, I see your point about size. It is indeed a much larger lens.

 

[Kiron Kid]

I very recently purchased the 70-200 f/4 VR glass. It’s much smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 version, and every bit as sharp.

 

[ac12]

I very recently purchased the 70-200 f/4 VR glass. It’s much smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 version, and every bit as sharp.

I would not use a 70-200/4 as a general "walk around lens."
Too big, and too heavy, for me.

 

[Kiron Kid]

I very recently purchased the 70-200 f/4 VR glass. It’s much smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 version, and every bit as sharp.

I would not use a 70-200/4 as a general "walk around lens."
Too big, and too heavy, for me.

I agree. The f/4 version is fairly compact and light. My “walk-around” glass is my 24-120.

 

[ac12]

I very recently purchased the 70-200 f/4 VR glass. It’s much smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 version, and every bit as sharp.

I would not use a 70-200/4 as a general "walk around lens."
Too big, and too heavy, for me.

I agree. The f/4 version is fairly compact and light. My “walk-around” glass is my 24-120.

View attachment 202767

You must be a BIG guy, cuz I have the 70-200/4, and while lighter than the f/2.8 lens, I do not consider it "compact." Smaller than the f/2.8 lens yes, but not compact.

I will gladly take the length of the 70-200/4. Because to make it shorter (and compact), it would have to be an extending lens. Most of extending zooms that I have run into have a stiff or STIFF zoom ring. This is from having to shove the optics and extending barrel in and out of the lens. I'll take an internal zoom, where there is less mass to move, and a nice light zoom ring.