Downside of 18-300 VR?

kdean63

Senior Member
I'm an amateur hobbyist, considering a new lens. I have two older Nikkor lenses (35-70 & 70-210).
I'm tempted to go with the Nikkor AFS-S DX 18-300 VR as a general purpose solution. What am I giving up by choosing this lens? limited light/speed? weight? issue with zoom creep?

Example: I was on a river tour in Costa Rica. I needed something for short range (3-8') shots, but also wanted some long range shots of wildlife on the river bank. I didn't want to carry two bodies or take time to swap lenses. Admitedly, this is not typical and I often could use a narrower range lens for better performance. I often shoot sports & action shots.

I'm interested in any suggestions/comments. Thanks!
(My current body is a D100 but considering a 5200 or 7100.)

Kevin
 

pedroj

Senior Member
Hi and welcome Kevin...I really don't think a lens with the range of 18-300mm would be as good as 2 lens covering the same mm..

Sports and action requires fast aperture glass...
 

Mark F

Senior Member
If you understand and can work around the lenses limitations... It's a great walk around lens for times when carrying 2 lenses doesn't make sense.
When I had my DX camera, I had the 18-200 on it most of the time
 

Maxie

Senior Member
I'm kinda in the same position. I was thinking about getting the 18-200mm and then found out about the 18-300mm lens. Is there any downside to the 18-300mm? Sorry for highjacking your thread, but thought it might help you as well.
 

Mark F

Senior Member
Three words. Size. Weight. Price.
18-200 vr is a very good lens for what it is... And a small crop to get you at 300 with today's high pixel cameras is a piece of cake.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Three words. Size. Weight. Price.
18-200 vr is a very good lens for what it is... And a small crop to get you at 300 with today's high pixel cameras is a piece of cake.

Agreed. The idea of One Lens to rule them all is seductive, but the reality is harsh. IMO, there are better options.
 
Top