Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikonites
Feedback and Suggestions
Question on a lens
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BF Hammer" data-source="post: 823096" data-attributes="member: 48483"><p>Summing things up, only you would be able to answer that question.</p><p></p><p>Here's a link to the review at a lens review site I regularly use. <a href="https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/18-300mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/review/" target="_blank">https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/18-300mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/review/</a></p><p></p><p>I have not used the lens, no personal experience. But the link above mentions a lens I did use for a long time in the alternatives. The Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 PZD. I used for a D80 and D7000. I did a lot of satisfactory work with it. I would not say it was outstanding at anything.</p><p></p><p>The real thing to consider with the "superzoom" category is the real world fact that all lens design is some kind of compromise. What decisions did the engineers make in order to give you a large zoom range in a package you can still hold in your hand? It usually comes from compromising both image quality and operation. The Tamron I used kind of was miserable to carry around. When you pointed it down it would literally fall to it's fully-zoomed position in about 1 second. It had a home-position lock for that reason, which did not help when you were trying to photograph things below your level. Besides that zoom-creep issue, it also had a focus-creep problem. That means that the full 270mm focal length only happened when focused at infinity. The zoom length became much shorter as you focused closer-in. So when I bought the lens I thought I would be able to forget about carrying a 70-300mm lens, but that was far from case. In practice the Tamron may top-out at 235mm shooting at things fairly close. It was really quite a difference to switch to the 70-300mm.</p><p></p><p>So it's a matter of how you want to use your camera. If you find it to be a hassle to change lenses around as you shoot things, perhaps you are a 1-lens kind of photographer and the image quality is a lesser concern. I find it to be just enough of a hassle to keep a backup camera (always my previous main camera) body around and I might just switch cameras on the fly instead of switching out a lens. So your style and intended use really is what will determine if the lens is worth buying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BF Hammer, post: 823096, member: 48483"] Summing things up, only you would be able to answer that question. Here's a link to the review at a lens review site I regularly use. [URL]https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/18-300mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/review/[/URL] I have not used the lens, no personal experience. But the link above mentions a lens I did use for a long time in the alternatives. The Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 PZD. I used for a D80 and D7000. I did a lot of satisfactory work with it. I would not say it was outstanding at anything. The real thing to consider with the "superzoom" category is the real world fact that all lens design is some kind of compromise. What decisions did the engineers make in order to give you a large zoom range in a package you can still hold in your hand? It usually comes from compromising both image quality and operation. The Tamron I used kind of was miserable to carry around. When you pointed it down it would literally fall to it's fully-zoomed position in about 1 second. It had a home-position lock for that reason, which did not help when you were trying to photograph things below your level. Besides that zoom-creep issue, it also had a focus-creep problem. That means that the full 270mm focal length only happened when focused at infinity. The zoom length became much shorter as you focused closer-in. So when I bought the lens I thought I would be able to forget about carrying a 70-300mm lens, but that was far from case. In practice the Tamron may top-out at 235mm shooting at things fairly close. It was really quite a difference to switch to the 70-300mm. So it's a matter of how you want to use your camera. If you find it to be a hassle to change lenses around as you shoot things, perhaps you are a 1-lens kind of photographer and the image quality is a lesser concern. I find it to be just enough of a hassle to keep a backup camera (always my previous main camera) body around and I might just switch cameras on the fly instead of switching out a lens. So your style and intended use really is what will determine if the lens is worth buying. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikonites
Feedback and Suggestions
Question on a lens
Top
