I saw this lens listed on Nikon's website as a new lens. Does anyone have any experience with it?
I have a number of higher end lenses, but I was looking at this as a light-weight alternative that would encourage using a DSLR over a point and shoot when traveling. The range covers about everything I would want when paired with the D7100, but are the optics decent? I realize that this much range in a single lens means compromise, but it might compare favorably with a Canon G11 or G1X that I typically take to keep the weight down.
At $900 list, I thought I would get some opinions first. The other obvious choice is the 18-200, but if this lens can deliver the goods it would be worth considering.
David
Oct 05, 2014 at 07:54 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I typically heard good things about the 18-200, so significantly better is a good thing. The pics in the above post look excellent on my iPad anyways.
I have the 18-70 kit lens and the Tamron VC and Nikon VR versions of the 70-300, so this isn't covering a range I don't already have taken care of by other lenses. However it is doing it with a single lens, which is a good thing for a P&S replacement and my reason for the question. This might be a good lens for what I want it for.
Buy a used 18-70 and 55-300 for half the money. Small, pretty darn good (you'll be shocked at how good the 18-70 is and the 55-300's a credible performer that will outperform the 18-300).
And you can leave one at home and then haul half the weight of the rather portly (830g, almost 2lb) 18-300. The 18-70 is 390g, the 55-300 is 530g, for an extra haul of 90g over the 18-300.
You all might be right. With the 18-70 and 70-300 I already have I might as well save myself $900 and just deal with two lenses. Assuming Nikon didn't just update this lens (it looks like they might have) Thom Hogan's review wasn't very flattering. I was using the Nikon 70-300 on the D7100 today and was pleased with the results. The 18-70 has always impressed me as well, though I haven't tried it with the D7100.
The reality is that if Nikon wants to make a lens in this range that's actually good (as opposed to acceptably mediocre, as the 18-200 was on 6-14MP bodies and the 18-300 seems to be on the 16-24MP bodies) you'll end up with something the size of the only truly good superzoom, Canon's 28-300L. Which is a beast, slightly larger than and noticeably heavier than the 70-200/2.8L II.
In the meantime, you can carry a couple good lenses in the same range, or accept the limitations of the superzoom (mediocre optics, largish weight & size, average focusing).
BTW, a good and relatively cheap way to lose weight for a vacation camera is to get a second, smaller, body like the D3x00's. A D3300 paired with the lenses I suggest above would be around 300g lighter than a D7100 with the 18-300 and cost about the same as the 18-300 would.
And on vacation, you will be able to leave the xx-300 home most days and just carry the 18-70. Only carry the xx-300 when you know you'll need reach. You already get a LOT of cropability out of the 24MP sensor.
Oct 05, 2014 at 06:44 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
eaglewolf wrote:
You all might be right. With the 18-70 and 70-300 I already have I might as well save myself $900 and just deal with two lenses. Assuming Nikon didn't just update this lens (it looks like they might have) Thom Hogan's review wasn't very flattering. I was using the Nikon 70-300 on the D7100 today and was pleased with the results. The 18-70 has always impressed me as well, though I haven't tried it with the D7100.
David
***********************
Oh man, with those two lenses I would not bother with the 18-300 ... save yourself some money. And, the 18-300 is not exactly a small lens.
I do miss my 18-70 for a small compact mid-range lens ... too bad Nikon does not make it any more.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Oh man, with those two lenses I would not bother with the 18-300 ... save yourself some money. And, the 18-300 is not exactly a small lens.
I do miss my 18-70 for a small compact mid-range lens ... too bad Nikon does not make it any more.
Cheers,
Andre
The real pity isn't that Nikon doesn't make it anymore, the lack of VR makes it obsolete in Nikon's current lineup of normal zooms, but rather that they have yet to come up with an acceptable replacement despite launching at least 4 lenses in this range since the 18-70.
I'd love to see it make a comeback as a VR lens, as long as Nikon maintains its speed (f4.5 at the long end and quite speedy AF drive). Even better would be a 16-70/3.5-4.5VR, which could replace the 16-85VR at the same time.
Oct 05, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
mawz wrote:
The real pity isn't that Nikon doesn't make it anymore, the lack of VR makes it obsolete in Nikon's current lineup of normal zooms, but rather that they have yet to come up with an acceptable replacement despite launching at least 4 lenses in this range since the 18-70.
I'd love to see it make a comeback as a VR lens, as long as Nikon maintains its speed (f4.5 at the long end and quite speedy AF drive). Even better would be a 16-70/3.5-4.5VR, which could replace the 16-85VR at the same time.
*****************
True enough on the 18-XX ad nausium. The 18-70 was an optical gem.
As for the 16-85VR, I've only ever heard good things about it ... no?
Note that the version of this lens with the f/6.3 aperture on the long end is a revision designed to make the lens more portable, and optically it has been improved to a degree. But that's about all I know about it.
For a modern alternative to the aged 18-70, look up Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4 OS | C.
True enough on the 18-XX ad nausium. The 18-70 was an optical gem.
As for the 16-85VR, I've only ever heard good things about it ... no?
The 16-85VR is a good but not great lens. Lovely colour, nice range, superb flare control, but pedestrian AF, it gets slow very quick (most of the f3.5-5.6 range is covered in the first 20mm of focal length range) and while it's actually sharp, it is quite low in micro contrast which results in images which don't appear as sharp as the 18-70, despite actually recording as much data.
I bought the 16-85VR for my D300 back in early 2008, and had the very same lens come back to me on loan when I acquired my D200 a couple months ago. It's a good lens, and arguably the best DX zoom Nikon makes today, but it's not the gem the 18-70 is.
I never used the new slower version. I have a copy of the previous version, the 18-300 VR 4.5 5.6, an excellent lens, better than the 18-200VR. My son has used it a lot on the D7000, my practical experience with the lens is a bit limited. The biggest advantage is the one lens does it all solution. IQ is very good for a 'consumer grade' lens, but that particular version is quite heavy and big. I read that the new version is lighter, on the other hand, the 6.3 aperture is a step backwards. Carrying a 16-85VR and a 70-300VR might deliver better pictures, but nothing beats the flexibility of a single lens.
Personally I like those swiss knife lenses a lot, I have been a huge fan of the 18-200VR and I always carry an FX body with the 28-300VR even for pro assignments.
I really like my 18-200. It is plenty sharp, really flexible and fairly light for what it covers. I've even done some BIF shooting with it messing around at the beach:
When I'm traveling and want to go light, it and my 35 f/1.8 are the kit for my D300s. The extra throw isn't really that useful for the weight IMHO.
I have used this lens (Nikon 18-300 DX) for a year and I love it. It is an excellent carry-about lens. I upgraded to a D600 and bought a 28-300 FX lens to replace it. I have mine available for sale. Please contact me if interested
I would definitely stick with a 2 lens kit. As mentioned the Sigma 17-70/f2.8-4 OS seems like the best upgrade to the Nikon 18-70. On the telephoto end, your good with the Tamron if you need the 200-300mm focal range. If your looking for something better and your willing to give up a bit of range, I would look at the Nikon 70-200/f4
If portability (and a wide focal range) is a real need, I would go for 18-140 teamed with either 35/f1.8 or 50/f1.8
I would keep using the 18-70. From my experience the 18-70 is the best kit lens. I liked it better than the 18-105 and 18-200. Yes the 18-300 would be nice but I think the price is too high and the thing's rather bulky. That's two strikes.
But I have never used it so maybe I'm wrong. I hear great things about the 18-140 and 18-300. Nikon seems to have no problem turning out marginally better midrange zooms year after year for DX.
