Another "What lens?" post

My wife has sold her D5300 with 18-140 and graduated to my D7100 with 18-200. I'm keeping the D7200 with the Tamzooka and will be getting shortly (hopefully?) a D500 for which I need a walk about lens. I have briefly looked at the Nikon 18-300 and the Tamron 16-300 and would appreciate opinions on these two lenses or any other suggestions that you guys might have.

The 18-140 is the answer you seek.
I borrowed one at a class. It's great for a bumming around lens.

I have the Nikon 18-300 and it's on my camera most of the time. I love it in pretty much every way.

canuck257 said:

My wife has sold her D5300 with 18-140 and graduated to my D7100 with 18-200. I'm keeping the D7200 with the Tamzooka and will be getting shortly (hopefully?) a D500 for which I need a walk about lens. I have briefly looked at the Nikon 18-300 and the Tamron 16-300 and would appreciate opinions on these two lenses or any other suggestions that you guys might have.

Click to expand...

This maybe a crazy idea, but what about a 24-120mmFX lens or even a 28-300mm FX (both Nikon). This way when you realize that you need a D750 to compliment your D500, you're covered.

If you're planning on completely opening up the IQ bottle neck via body, I would do anything BUT bog that down on the cheaper lens side.

Blacktop said:

This maybe a crazy idea, but what about a 24-120mmFX lens or even a 28-300mm FX (both Nikon). This way when you realize that you need a D750 to compliment your D500, you're covered.

Click to expand...

I have driven myself half crazy trying to choose between the D500 and the D750. I am going with the D500 because most of my photography is wildlife and rodeo sports and I'm fed up with prevaricating. I will look at the 28-300 though.

Brett said:

I have the Nikon 18-300 and it's on my camera most of the time. I love it in pretty much every way.

Click to expand...

Do you have the f5.6 or the f6.3? How is the IQ across the zoom range, I've heard rumors of softness in both lenses though the f6.3 is apparently a little sharper at the long end?

SkvLTD said:

If you're planning on completely opening up the IQ bottle neck via body, I would do anything BUT bog that down on the cheaper lens side.

Click to expand...

I heartily agree, hence this question.

canuck257 said:

Do you have the f5.6 or the f6.3? How is the IQ across the zoom range, I've heard rumors of softness in both lenses though the f6.3 is apparently a little sharper at the long end?

Click to expand...

I have the 5.6 and I read the same reviews. That has not been my experience at all. The lens is surprisingly sharp. It is not a pro model lens but is well built, super versatile, and produces great color, contrast and clarity when used well. Long lenses have a learning curve for sharpness no matter which make and model because long focal lengths magnify human error in focus and camera movement.

I guess everyone has a standard on what they think is great with IQ. havnt seen any super zooms that put out an image that impressed me. not 1. kind of interesting youre buying a camera with excellent possible IQ but place lenses that are..I need to go to the WC.

rocketman122 said:

I guess everyone has a standard on what they think is great with IQ. havnt seen any super zooms that put out an image that impressed me. not 1. kind of interesting youre buying a camera with excellent possible IQ but place lenses that are..I need to go to the WC.

Click to expand...

Everyone has different needs. I'm a hopeless hobby for fun never amount to anything hack photographer. For that very specific use, I am fine with the IQ. It's higher than mine. Don't look for my work to be published by anyone but my wife, and that's good enough for me. I deleted my Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram a few months back for this very reason...It ruins all the fun. I'm outta here. I'll be out taking pictures with my crappy lens and having a blast doing it. Goodbye photography "social media!"

My wife shoots with the D7100 with 18-200. It was my main camera for a while before she took it over. I shot with the 18-140 and I can tell you that the IQ of it is much better than the 18-200. I did go from the 18-140 to the 24-120 F4 for a while on the D7100 in preparation for FX and the IQ is fantastic but I really did miss the difference in 18mm to 24mm. 24 is not quite wide enough for DX in my opinion.

My opinion on the super zoom like the 18-200 and 18-300 is that they are just not as good. I think you have to give up some quality to get the extra zoom.

rocketman122 said:

I guess everyone has a standard on what they think is great with IQ. havnt seen any super zooms that put out an image that impressed me. not 1. kind of interesting youre buying a camera with excellent possible IQ but place lenses that are..I need to go to the WC.

Click to expand...

The OP is talking about a general walkabout lens, not for a specific need. I would not recommend shooting a wedding with a super zoom or even a 24-120mm f/4 lens but for walking around town or at a farmers market or what have you it will do a fine job.

For walk around lens, I find that the 18-55 is excellent. It is sharp (well relative to super zooms), small and light. In markets and on the streets I have rarely felt the need for a longer focal length, unless you want to shoot distant objects regularly. In fact it is the wide end that is most useful in street shooting. For most users in film era, the 50mm was the walk around lens and hundreds of Leica users used nothing else.

I have the Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6, and I have a love/hate relationship with it. It is very sharp at certain focal length/aperture combinations, and pretty soft at others. It is nice for a vacation/casual picture lens, but can be very frustrating to use when I need/want high quality. At the long end, it is softer on focus than I would like.

The bottom line for me at this point is that I think I spent way too much on this lens. I wouldn't buy it again if I could go back in time. Still, I'm going to keep it and use it since I have it and it is very convenient in some situations.

Blacktop said:

The OP is talking about a general walkabout lens, not for a specific need. I would not recommend shooting a wedding with a super zoom or even a 24-120mm f/4 lens but for walking around town or at a farmers market or what have you it will do a fine job.

Click to expand...

That sums my requirement up precisely, except my walkabout is mainly rural (very rural here in central BC) hence the interest in the longer focal length to grab (not literally) the occasional passing bear or cougar.:unconscious:

I'm going to go with the 18-300 and see how it works out for me.

canuck257 said:

That sums my requirement up precisely, except my walkabout is mainly rural (very rural here in central BC) hence the interest in the longer focal length to grab (not literally) the occasional passing bear or cougar.:unconscious:

I'm going to go with the 18-300 and see how it works out for me.

Click to expand...

A prime would give better quality if you are shooting from a reasonable distance. Most of the super zooms are quite soft at long end. The Nikon 300mm F4 AFS would be the most VFM lens, especially if you get a good pre-owned copy.

Don Kuykendall said:

My wife shoots with the D7100 with 18-200. It was my main camera for a while before she took it over. I shot with the 18-140 and I can tell you that the IQ of it is much better than the 18-200. I did go from the 18-140 to the 24-120 F4 for a while on the D7100 in preparation for FX and the IQ is fantastic but I really did miss the difference in 18mm to 24mm. 24 is not quite wide enough for DX in my opinion.

My opinion on the super zoom like the 18-200 and 18-300 is that they are just not as good. I think you have to give up some quality to get the extra zoom.

Click to expand...

I have a 18-270 Tamron I use if I'm hiking into remote areas when I want one lens and would not use it in any other situation because it kind of sucks.

I have not tested the D500 but since you already have the D7200 and D7100, wonder why still DX?

I am not going I to the DX/FX debate but if I am you, I would focus on some prime lens instead of body.

A guy on another forum I am a member of has a new Tamron 16-300, he uses it with a D7000. He has been posting some pretty awesome looking photos with that combo.