Any experience or thoughts you'd share re: Nikon AF-S Nikkor DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G E

I'm thinking of selling some of my lens for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G E.

All the reviews I read are positive but I'd appreciate hearing from you kind folks.

My logic (possibly flawed) is that less is more... That I'm better served with one higher end lens that does all the genres I like at this time...

Jackpot said:

I'm thinking of selling some of my lens for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G E.

All the reviews I read are positive but I'd appreciate hearing from you kind folks.

My logic (possibly flawed) is that less is more... That I'm better served with one higher end lens that does all the genres I like at this time...

Click to expand...

I would have to know what glass you're considering letting go of before I could say I'd do the same thing or not. At one point I too thought there could be One Lens to Rule Them All and the 18-300 sure seemed to fit the bill. Then I used one for a couple days. Notice I said "used", not "bought". My opinion on the 18-300 is this...

Is the 18-300 a good lens? Yes, it's a good lens. Is it a GREAT lens? No, not even. Distortion is pretty much ever-present, especially at the longest focal lengths and sharpness, while acceptable, was certainly not breathtaking by any stretch of the imagination. I also think you see a lot of positive reviews because if I had just dropped four-figures on a piece of glass I'd sure as hell be a tad biased in my appreciation for it too.

In my experience with this lens (and I admit it was short) it was awesome having one lens and having the full-spectrum covered. Convenience out the whazoo! What I sacrificed with it was image quality and there's just no escaping that. It's easy to look at shot taken with the 18-300 and think it's pretty amazing. Right up until you put images up against it, side by side, from, say, the 70-300mm. I've simply come to learn that while the Big Zooms have their place, they're no replacement for a really rocket prime and that no matter what, there is always a trade off. Always. And for me, the 18-300 was too much of a compromise.

I feel like I'm raining on your parade but if you can, I would ever so strongly suggest you rent one of these bad boys and try it out before letting go of what may be some superb primes that you may find yourself regretting letting go of AND dishing out a grand for the 18-300.


...

Horoscope Fish is spot on.
It's better to have a couple of lenses to cover the desired focal length than to have one for all.
As the focal length coverage increases, very obviously the image quality decreases.
I've seen even the 18-105 perform just as well or even better than the 18-300..

​so you need to take a call of convenience over quality

The term Jack of all trades master of none seems to come to mind here.

Besides.....what would happen to your one lens if it somehow malfunctioned? Or was dropped? Stay with at least a few lenses.
An 18-105 and 70-300 covers that one expensive lens. and are just as good.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Think of this way; its a good "travel-walk about" lens where just recording the sights and you are NOT making money on the lens for a client or for profit just that its a light carry. As the others say you might want a range of lenses so if weight is a consideration this would be a good walk about in daylight photography. Notice I said daylight as this lens is not very fast (small aperture) so it would not be great lets say in a church you would be visiting for available light as you would sacrifice in high ISO (which introduces digital noise). So its a really a call on your part. An example you visit Disney World this would be a useful lens as as you have a small bag to carry the set up.

Just my opinion as the wife is interested in this lens.

Ciao,
​Lou Cioccio

I have the exact lens in the 18-200mm flavor. For a real time example look at my thread titled "Captiva Island Ospreys". Specifically the images that are not cropped. Look at what's in focus at the center vs. the edges that are on the same focal plane. I suspect the 300mm when zoomed all the way out like I was with the Ospreys would be even worse than the 200mm is.

Maybe the 18-100mm is the better (certainly cheaper) way to go...