Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX Nikkor Lens

[Keith1010]

While cruising earlier this year a fellow passenger told me that this lens would be coming out sometime this year. I happened to check and see that the lens is now available.

 

While there are always pros and cons for this type of lens the advantage is that it can cut down on the number of lenses you take with you on a cruise. The reviews I have read (and there are not many yet) were mainly positive.

 

Keith

[awboater]

You should realize that as you increase zoom power, the image quality usually goes down. There may be exceptions to this, but I believe this to generally be true.

 

I have the Nikon 18-200mm and it is true with that lens when it is wide open. If I stop down to f/8, the lens performs acceptably well. So I consider it a daylight only lens, and I am willing to accept that limitation for the convenience of carrying less gear on a cruise.

 

However, in my view, that is the maximum you should go in a superzoom. A 18-300mm lens seems nice, but it is just that much more powerful (and presumable, just that more marginal).

 

And I really don't see a significant difference between 200mm and 300mm. A noticeable difference yes - but not a significant one.

 

So my opinion is that if you want an all-in-one lens, limit it to something reasonable, like 18-200mm.

 

Of course, I say all of this without actually looking at the lens, so who knows - perhaps Nikon has made some breakthrough to produce a great lens...

[Keith1010]

I know there are mixed views on this. I mainly posted this because some people have been waiting for it.

 

There were some nice reviews about it on Amazon. And they noted pluses and minuses so I felt they were well written and balanced.

 

Keith

[Turtles06]

I just bought this lens on Sunday, primarily because we are going to Antarctica next year, and I wanted more reach than my Nikon 18-200mm (which I love) and do not feel like taking a lot of lenses is a real option, all things considered.

 

I haven't had a chance yet to do more than take it out of the box, but this weekend I hope to get out there and will report back. :)

[Keith1010]

I just bought this lens on Sunday, primarily because we are going to Antarctica next year, and I wanted more reach than my Nikon 18-200mm (which I love) and do not feel like taking a lot of lenses is a real option, all things considered.

 

I haven't had a chance yet to do more than take it out of the box, but this weekend I hope to get out there and will report back. :)

 

Please do post to let me know what you think.

 

I do have the 18-200 but I too am thinking about this to minimize lenses for our trips. Ironically we have a South America cruise too, not Antarctica, but everything else you can think of and am thinking of it for that.

 

Thanks,

 

Keith

[Turtles06]

And I really don't see a significant difference between 200mm and 300mm. A noticeable difference yes - but not a significant one.

 

 

Granted, it's not a humongous difference, but it's the full frame camera equivalent of 150mm on my DX camera (a Nikon D7000), which is not nothing. The Nat'l Geographic photography folks think 300mm would be an advantage over 200mm in Antarctica.

 

But as you said, neither of us has yet to see this lens in action. It's sitting on my desk right now as I type this -- darn those day jobs!!

 

Funny thing -- I did take a couple of quick pics on our street of the same subject at 200 and 300mm. When I showed them to my partner, who I thought would be quite skeptical about this purchase, she thought there was sufficient enough difference to justify the new lens. :)

[chipmaster]

Pro: Large range single lense solutions, no changing for the most part.

 

Con: Poor image quality than the 70-300 or 55-300, more expensive.

 

Don't forget the size issue carrying one big lense versus perhaps a 18-105 and 55-300, or maybe if changing lense ain't what you are into a realy big superzoom.

 

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/27/nikon-18-200mm-and-18-300mm-dx-lenses-size-comparison.aspx/

 

 

While cruising earlier this year a fellow passenger told me that this lens would be coming out sometime this year. I happened to check and see that the lens is now available.

 

While there are always pros and cons for this type of lens the advantage is that it can cut down on the number of lenses you take with you on a cruise. The reviews I have read (and there are not many yet) were mainly positive.

 

Keith

[Turtles06]

Pro: Large range single lense solutions, no changing for the most part.

 

Con: Poor image quality than the 70-300 or 55-300, more expensive.

 

Don't forget the size issue carrying one big lense versus perhaps a 18-105 and 55-300, or maybe if changing lense ain't what you are into a realy big superzoom.

 

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/27/nikon-18-200mm-and-18-300mm-dx-lenses-size-comparison.aspx/

 

Where are you getting this "con" from; the link you included is to a size comparison between the 18-200 and 18-300 (and anyone could tell from the specs that the latter is heavier and longer)..... The comments posted to that link are for the most part by people who haven't used the 18-300 lens, as opposed to some actual reviews on the Amazon link in Keith's post above.

[jlat]

Granted, it's not a humongous difference, but it's the full frame camera equivalent of 150mm on my DX camera (a Nikon D7000), which is not nothing. The Nat'l Geographic photography folks think 300mm would be an advantage over 200mm in Antarctica.

 

But as you said, neither of us has yet to see this lens in action. It's sitting on my desk right now as I type this -- darn those day jobs!!

 

Funny thing -- I did take a couple of quick pics on our street of the same subject at 200 and 300mm. When I showed them to my partner, who I thought would be quite skeptical about this purchase, she thought there was sufficient enough difference to justify the new lens. :)

 

Looking hard at buying or renting this lens for my trip to Alaska next year. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it.

[Keith1010]

I did go ahead and order the Lens after reading the reviews that have been posted on Amazon.Com

 

Keith

[chipmaster]

I've owned the 18-200, two copies, 70-300, shot the 55-200, 17-55, 16-85 and now have the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 24-120F4 and 200F2, had and sold a few other primes too, not to mention a few Tamron zooms.

 

You can't cheat optics and the 18-200 is soft on the long end, slow too, the 18-300 will be similar. Superzooms are always a compromise, or they will be even bigger and more expensive.

 

We can wait for MTF and reviews at SLRgear, dpreview but you can read the ones that exist for the other superzoom and compare with the 55-200 or 70-300, fewer compromises, smaller, better IQ always on less x zoom.

 

Now does it mean the at 18-300 its bad at 300, no but I would wager the IQ will be inferior to both the 55-300 or the 70-300, enough to matter, maybe not to those many amazon reviewers who are gaga over the superzoom features. BTW that will be dust magnet too :D

 

If I was going on a once in a lifetime trip and needed a long zoom, I'd get a backup camera on CL and a used 70-300 and put a 18-105 on my other camera. You'd have better optics on both, backup camera, and when you come back be able to sell both with almost no dollar loss. Now again if all you want is a convenient superzoom there are some good P&S that have more than 300 now too.

 

 

Where are you getting this "con" from; the link you included is to a size comparison between the 18-200 and 18-300 (and anyone could tell from the specs that the latter is heavier and longer)..... The comments posted to that link are for the most part by people who haven't used the 18-300 lens, as opposed to some actual reviews on the Amazon link in Keith's post above.

[knittinggirl]

I'm wondering if we could add a teleconverter to the 18-300mm. But then we'd be around F11 at full zoom with the light loss. The extra weight of this lens may turn it into a tripod only lens for me.

[chipmaster]

Even the newest D800/D4 won't auto focus at F8 or much beyond. Between F11 no AF and IQ from add on TC you are much better cropping IMHO.

 

I'm wondering if we could add a teleconverter to the 18-300mm. But then we'd be around F11 at full zoom with the light loss. The extra weight of this lens may turn it into a tripod only lens for me.

[Rocky252]

I'm wondering if we could add a teleconverter to the 18-300mm. But then we'd be around F11 at full zoom with the light loss. The extra weight of this lens may turn it into a tripod only lens for me.

The 18-300mm is not listed in Nikon's TC compatibility chart.

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/en_US_Comp_chart.html

[Turtles06]

as promised above...

 

I picked up the lens last Sunday, but with work this week, I had no time to do any real shooting. I was determined to get out today (Sat.), weather permitting. It rained early, but fortunately stopped by around 8am. So I headed off to the zoo... (with my Nikon D7000).

 

After this initial shoot, my feeling about this lens is that it really is the "Big Sister" to the 18-200 (which I happen to love), and if you've been happy with that (or thinking about getting it), you'll likely be happy with the 18-300. I think the performance of the lens was similar to that of the 18-200, and I really appreciated having the extra reach. (It was a very dim day, so I didn't have a chance to test the lens in bright sunlight.) If you are going to be in situations where you don't want to be (or can't be) changing lenses, I think this lens is an option. (It is heavier than the 18-200 by about 9oz, as I knew from the specs. So be forewarned that it's a good deal to carry around.)

 

I can't compare this lens to the 55-300 or 70-300, since I don't own either.

 

This is a crop from an image taken at 300mm. The uncropped original image is below it; no post-processing in either. (I was a good distance away from this cat! :))

 

 

 

[Jade13]

Nice photos. I own a D7000 and 70-300mm. Would love to know the difference in image quality with the 55-300.

 

A 300mm reach is necessary if going to Antarctica or the Arctic. I made a mistake only having/taking a 200mm to Antarctica although I had a 300mm I had used for Galapagos years earlier.

 

For South America I rarely used any telephoto lens, but used my wide angle 90% of the time.

 

 

 

I can't compare this lens to the 55-300 or 70-300, since I don't own either.

 

This is a crop from an image taken at 300mm. The uncropped original image is below it; no post-processing in either. (I was a good distance away from this cat! :))

 

 

 

[Jade13]

So, going to Africa on Safari next year. I have the Nikon 70-300mm. Should I be renting a 400mm or 500mm? The D7000 and 70-300mm is already getting heavy for me.

 

 

I've owned the 18-200, two copies, 70-300, shot the 55-200, 17-55, 16-85 and now have the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 24-120F4 and 200F2, had and sold a few other primes too, not to mention a few Tamron zooms.

 

You can't cheat optics and the 18-200 is soft on the long end, slow too, the 18-300 will be similar. Superzooms are always a compromise, or they will be even bigger and more expensive.

 

We can wait for MTF and reviews at SLRgear, dpreview but you can read the ones that exist for the other superzoom and compare with the 55-200 or 70-300, fewer compromises, smaller, better IQ always on less x zoom.

 

Now does it mean the at 18-300 its bad at 300, no but I would wager the IQ will be inferior to both the 55-300 or the 70-300, enough to matter, maybe not to those many amazon reviewers who are gaga over the superzoom features. BTW that will be dust magnet too :D

 

If I was going on a once in a lifetime trip and needed a long zoom, I'd get a backup camera on CL and a used 70-300 and put a 18-105 on my other camera. You'd have better optics on both, backup camera, and when you come back be able to sell both with almost no dollar loss. Now again if all you want is a convenient superzoom there are some good P&S that have more than 300 now too.

[jdrblue]

I have the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5 - 6.3 VC PZD and a Nikon D300. Several posters have mentioned the limitations of the all-in-ones. I do a lot of travel photography and some landscape that may involve a few miles hike. The Tamron is small and light so it works for me. It is a pretty good all purpose lens. I had the earlier version Nikon 18-200. The Tamron tested equal if not slightly better than the Nikon in the 18-200 range but quality really falls off past 200mm. I don't shoot much wildlife. By far the bulk of my pictures are nearer the wide angle and not many beyond 180mm. If you really want a long lens I couldn't recommend the Tamron 18-270. I agree with chipmaster. I bet the Nikon 18-300 mm really falls off on the long end too. My Tamron is f/3.5 at 18mm, 4.5 at 35mm, 5.0 at 50 mm, 6.0 at 100mm and 6.3 at 180mm. At the longer end images are a little soft, doesn't work well in low light and the auto focus can be iffy on the long end. Often at 270mm focus is at infinity so I just go manual.

 

I really thought about the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS as a long lens solution. I have a photo friend that really loves his Big Sig. I suspect the 10X Big Sig has some of the same short comings though. I'm going to Montana and Wyoming this fall and hope to see some wildlife. Right now I don't have a long lens solution either.

[jlat]

Turtle thanks for the review. I decided to upgrade my D40 with a D90 then sell the D40 and rent the lens. I think that normally the 18-200 I have now will be fine, but for Alaska I want just a little more gun. Appreciate the review.

[knittinggirl]

I'm a little confused after checking at Nikonusa. Is the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $589.95 format FX/35mm ? Does that mean it won't work on my Nikon d5100.

[snowbird1]

I'm a little confused after checking at Nikonusa. Is the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $589.95 format FX/35mm ? Does that mean it won't work on my Nikon d5100.

 

Will let someone other with definite knowledge address however it is my understanding it will work on both Sensors. Doesn't the Nikon website address this?

[giraffelt]

Yes, it is a FX lens and yes it will work on your DX 5100. The advantages for you are a) its a AF-S so you will get autofocus and b) because your camera is a DX you will be only using the central portion of the glass which means you will be cropping out any edge fall off of the lens.

 

Check out the lens simulation feature on NikonUSA for FX lens on DX body to get an idea of the cropping factor.

Larry

[Keith1010]

I did end up ordering the lens and it has arrived.

 

I have taken some photos and so far so good.

 

I will put it to a test on our January South America cruise.

 

To all that responded, thank you for your input.

 

This is a great area of Cruise Critic with quite a few knowledgeable sources of information and I really appreciate it.

 

Keith

[Turtles06]

I did end up ordering the lens and it has arrived.

 

I have taken some photos and so far so good.

 

I will put it to a test on our January South America cruise.

 

To all that responded, thank you for your input.

 

This is a great area of Cruise Critic with quite a few knowledgeable sources of information and I really appreciate it.

 

Keith

 

Enjoy the lens and your cruise!

[knittinggirl]

Good luck, and have a great cruise. My main worry about the 18-300 is being able to hand hold it with minimal camera shake. Not sure if it's possible for me.