Lens
- Thread starter Tonij
- Start date
I don't own much in third party lenses. Matter of fact I'm not sure if I have any right now. But it varies as to which lenses are good, even when talking about third party lenses. Some can be awesome, and others not good at all. I'm not sure which third party lenses are great and which ones aren't. But the I believe the Nikkor 18-300 is suppose to be a pretty good lens, but since I don't have one I can't say for sure.
You might need to post what your looking to use if for, to help the more knowledgeable members help you find the best lens for you, at a good price.
You might need to post what your looking to use if for, to help the more knowledgeable members help you find the best lens for you, at a good price.
I'm no lens expert, but is the idea of a 18-300mm a universal do-it-all lens? I've never even heard of such. Does an owner gain anything with a lens like that versus buying an 18-55mm and a 50-300mm? Would the weight and length of an 18-300 make it cumbersome to carry? Are it's optics and maximum aperture as good as the separate lenses? Just curious about all of this.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Yeah, pretty much. It's what I call the "One Lens to Rule Them All" line of thinking.
You give up a lot, IMO, when doing this... Yes, there are exceptions but you generally give up image quality and the 18-300mm is no exception here. They're also heavy and slow as soon as you start to use any significant degree of zoom. For a D5100 I would suggest a wide-to-medium telephoto like the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 VR as a general purpose lens; a good fast prime like the 35mm or 50mm f/1.8G and one big zoom like the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 personally. Three lenses and you're pretty much covered. Now if you routinely want to get great shots of hummingbirds, or dangerous game, then that changes things obviously.
....
Last edited:
Thanks very much Horoscope Fish. You confirmed my suspicion that an 18-300mm would present some liabilities with use.
[I can't help but think of the times I borrowed my Dad's Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 Zoom from the 1970s. It weighed over 5 Lbs. I think and was probably a foot or more long. Because of its weight and unwieldy size, it had a pistol grip at the center and a cable release from the grip to fire the camera. Mounting it all up was quite the endeavor and wasn't the sort of lens you wanted to use very often.] Times sure have changed.
[I can't help but think of the times I borrowed my Dad's Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 Zoom from the 1970s. It weighed over 5 Lbs. I think and was probably a foot or more long. Because of its weight and unwieldy size, it had a pistol grip at the center and a cable release from the grip to fire the camera. Mounting it all up was quite the endeavor and wasn't the sort of lens you wanted to use very often.
] Times sure have changed.
Last edited:
I have an all-in-one for situations where I know I won't be able to change lenses. For instance, my wife and I went to Hawaii a couple months back. I knew there would be at least two situations where changing lenses would be an issue. When you visit the USS Arizona / Pearl Harbor Memorial you are not allowed to bring any bags but are allowed to bring a camera. We also took a helicopter tour over Volcano National Park. In both cases having a all-in-one were perfect.
When I shot DX I had the Nikon 18-200 and now that I'm shooting FX I have a Tamron 28-300. I purchased both used realizing they wouldn't be primary lenses. If you can afford to have an all-in-one in your kit and can manage any potential trade-offs, they are useful.
That is exactly where you "NEED" the all-in-one lense. Rest of the time it is sheer lethargy which prompts us to use it. IQ wise most of the non professional zooms are quite bad at 300mm. Apart from bad IQ and the weight they are pretty slow. In contrast the 18-55 is light. Beyond 100mm a prime would serve you better both in terms of IQ as well as speed.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
And I certainly don't mean to imply they don't have their place. My overarching point was how there's always going to be some give and take when it comes to optics. If you're happy with the exchange, great; but my point, again, is that there is that there is most definitely going to be an exchange somewhere along the continuum and, usually it seems to me, the first thing to go is image quality.
Just as soon as they release a 15-500mm f/1.8G that weighs two-pounds, has the IQ of my 85mm f/1.8G and costs $300 you'd better believe I'll be all over it.
....
heathramos
Senior Member
Ftr...I have a 18-300mm lens. I bought it for my safari trip because I didn't think I would have time to change lenses and I couldn't guarantee the distance for shots. My mother brought separate lenses and missed shots when animals got too close. I read that these types lose something when fully zoomed and can take soft pictures, whatever that means. I thought my pics came out okay and any lack of quality was because of my lack of skills more than the equipment I used.
When I am doing "serious" stuff, I stick to my shorter range zooms and prime lenses, but the 18-300 f/5.6 VR is actually a decent lens, and I have gotten some great, sharp shots with it. Even at 300mm if you close down the aperture a bit, you can get some pretty sharp shots.
It's pretty expensive, and I suppose it's a tad heavy (I'm used to hauling a 300mm f/4 prime with 1.4 TC most of the time, so the 18-300 feels tiny to me) but for the times you can't or don't want to carry extra lenses, this is a nice option.
It's pretty expensive, and I suppose it's a tad heavy (I'm used to hauling a 300mm f/4 prime with 1.4 TC most of the time, so the 18-300 feels tiny to me) but for the times you can't or don't want to carry extra lenses, this is a nice option.