Lens question from a beginner

I have just read an article in a mag and this has prompted me to ask this (stupid) question, If you can have a Nikkor lens 18-300 does this lens take exactly the same picture at 35mm as a 35mm lens does i.e for macro and if not why not and can some one give a brief reason so another beginner to photography can understand??
Sorry if it's a daft question, but I would rather ask the experts and get the right answer

if you have the range of the zoom at 35, then yes, the same field of vision as a fixed prime 35 lens.

and I think you are mixing macro with 35, 35 is a semi wide angle on a full frame camera, but more of a mid reange on a DX cropped sensor (equal to around 52.5 mm).

Macros are special lens, that allow you to move the lens much closer to the subject for that category of photos. Macro lens tend to start around 60 mm.

zooms are flexible, but tend to have a bit less sharpness and have other issues versus dedicated prime lens (like your 35 example).

In a nutshell, the biggest difference is image quality.

35mm Prime = better colours, sharper images, better bokeh (background blur) since it's 1.8 (assuming its 35mm 1.8G)

18-300mm (@35mm) = possible distortion and not the same optic quality and colours as a prime lens

as a beginner, I would recommend you still stick with the newer zooms, the difference is not really enough versus the flexibility of the zoom, and working on your technique and camera control. Work on composition, and frankly, Photo shop editing skills, and then when you are ready to deal with the pain of dedicated primes, consider adding primes to your collection.

Every time you take on and off a lens, you are risking dust, so,, use primes when you are trying to get the last 10% (or less).

Primes are masters of their focal lengths.

Thanks to all you guys for your replies, STMV I will continue to get better with the two lenses I have and in time move on to another lens, I was just looking to find out the difference between fixed and zoom! Cheers again guys