Please understand my ignorance about lenses

Generally quality fluctuates with focal range, that is why primes tend to be sharper

For example, the 18-55 you already have is probably a better lens in the 18-55 range than the 18-300 will be. you would be better off getting the 55-300 (or 70-300vr) to compliment the 18-55. But. that is not a one lens solution.

Lens design involves compromises, and superzooms like the 18-300 have to make major compromises in image quality to get such a big range of focal lengths. You would see them as distortions at different focal lengths (e.g. straight lines not being straight in your images), vignetting (differences in brightness at the corners vs. the center), soft focus away from the center, etc. Some of these can be corrected easily in software. Then there are operational differences, like maximum apertures that vary over the zoom range (that f/3.5-5.6 business). And then there's bokeh, that quality that out of focus elements of your scene display. Some lenses produce a pleasing bokeh, some don't.

Disorderly said:

Lens design involves compromises, and superzooms like the 18-300 have to make major compromises in image quality to get such a big range of focal lengths. You would see them as distortions at different focal lengths (e.g. straight lines not being straight in your images), vignetting (differences in brightness at the corners vs. the center), soft focus away from the center, etc. Some of these can be corrected easily in software. Then there are operational differences, like maximum apertures that vary over the zoom range (that f/3.5-5.6 business). And then there's bokeh, that quality that out of focus elements of your scene display. Some lenses produce a pleasing bokeh, some don't.

Click to expand...

Excellent explanation. Nicely done.

Disorderly said:

Lens design involves compromises, and superzooms like the 18-300 have to make major compromises in image quality to get such a big range of focal lengths. You would see them as distortions at different focal lengths (e.g. straight lines not being straight in your images), vignetting (differences in brightness at the corners vs. the center), soft focus away from the center, etc. Some of these can be corrected easily in software. Then there are operational differences, like maximum apertures that vary over the zoom range (that f/3.5-5.6 business). And then there's bokeh, that quality that out of focus elements of your scene display. Some lenses produce a pleasing bokeh, some don't.

Click to expand...

So when would a professional use a lens like this? Do the pro's use software often to make these kind of corrections or would they normally avoid this range of lens?

When I was on vacation I met a dude from Houston who had a D7000. He had two lenses with him...the aforementioned 18-300 and a 35/1.8. Personally I thought the 18-300 was pretty cool but man zoom that thing out and it looks like you have a telescope on your camera. He was very pleased with his and told me that he hardly even bothers with his other lenses since he got this one.

I think it is a pretty wide range maybe even to wide of a range and at $1000 that is a lot of chili.

silvercreek said:

So when would a professional use a lens like this? Do the pro's use software often to make these kind of corrections or would they normally avoid this range of lens?

Click to expand...

Most "pros", or perhaps people who earn a living in photography use lenses which excel in areas more specific to the types of photography they shoot. This is not a portrait lens, it is not a landscape lens and it is not a fast sports/journalism lens. Don't get me wrong, it can do a lot, but nothing great. Good photographers will get good shots from this lens, but I wouldn't try to earn a living off it. Everyone gets sucked into the mega-zoom allure at some point, but you soon will realize that you may not get the results you want across the entire range. These are great walk around and travel lenses, if that's what you want it for, this may be it. It may help if we knew what you hope to accomplish with this lens.

cnyram said:

Most "pros", or perhaps people who earn a living in photography use lenses which excel in areas more specific to the types of photography they shoot. This is not a portrait lens, it is not a landscape lens and it is not a fast sports/journalism lens. Don't get me wrong, it can do a lot, but nothing great. Good photographers will get good shots from this lens, but I wouldn't try to earn a living off it. Everyone gets sucked into the mega-zoom allure at some point, but you soon will realize that you may not get the results you want across the entire range. These are great walk around and travel lenses, if that's what you want it for, this may be it. It may help if we knew what you hope to accomplish with this lens.

Click to expand...

Understood and a good explaination. I'm not smart enough about the proper use of the correct lens to accomplish anything in particular. I'm only trying to gain the knowledge to chose the right lens.

Thanks!

cnyram said:

It may help if we knew what you hope to accomplish with this lens.

Click to expand...

It's an important point. One aspect of what you hope to accomplish is the resolution of the final result. If all you want is web size or even printed output at moderate size, a lens like this may be fine, at least after you've done some cleanup of the images. I submit a lot of images to microstock agencies for resale. They're pixel peepers who look at every image at 100%. Faults that may not show up at web size will be glaring problems at full resolution. So for me it's worth using a set of constant aperture zooms and a few select primes. A superzoom would be a waste of money for me, since every shot I take is a candidate for my stock portfolio. Your mileage may be different.

For the money I would buy two better than kit zooms instead of the 18-300 because of reasons Rick said above.

silvercreek said:

I'm only trying to gain the knowledge to chose the right lens.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Choosing the right lens depends on what you want a lens for, which is why you were asked what you intend to shoot and what your expectations are. If you're like many people here and are bitten by the world of photography, you will forever be trying to hone your skills. This means as you get better, you will find " all in one " lenses limitations. You will then start selling them off for better lenses that do the particular job that your all in one lens didnt do earlier.
Pro's very rarely use an all in one. They are a compromise in everything - mainly resolution and available apertures. If you have this bug of photography, and you feel you really want to get way better in your skills, by all means start with an all in one, as running before you can walk wont pay in the end. But dont buy a new all in one lens.
Because as sure as mustard, you will need to sell it and buying new means YOU will take the hit in depreciation.

Be prepared to save money. Good lenses cost - there is no way round this

On the other hand, if you only want a do it all travel lens, and dont feel like you want to get into the ever financial spiral of increasing your gear for this and that lens, then this or that body, ad infinitum, then just read some reviews on big zoom all in ones and go snapping