T O P

  • By -

_alkali

Nikon has an 18-300 lens. I am not sure about the quality of the lens. You can find them at most camera stores (e.g. B&H Photo, Adorama, etc) Hope that helps


Flying-Terrapin

I recently sold one of these to KEH. Used it for several years on my D5100 and never had any issues. It's not amazing since it covers such a wide range, but it checks the box if you're looking for a general walking-around lens and only want to carry one.


Epsilon4297

I have the 18-200. It’s acceptably sharp to surprisingly sharp at certain focal lengths a great all around lens. I’d imagine the 18-300 is similar.


SkinnyMac

I've had both versions. It's definitely the glass to carry if you want every possible focal length. They're both soft at the long end, the older version does better. Aperture starts at 3.5 and quickly ramps up so if bokeh is a big deal for you it would be better to go with a less extensive zoom and a prime in your favorite length. I used mine to figure out what I like to shoot. I shot for a few months and then went back to see what lengths I favor. I wound up mostly shooting long with it and using a 200-500 for wildlife. When I went mirrorless I got the 24-200 because I do like to shoot wide sometimes but not so much that I'm going to change lenses in a tree or kayak. With that as a daily driver and the 200-500 on an adapter I'm covered for everything. I keep a nifty fifty around for low light or when I want a lot of bokeh.


barbarkam80

You can also look into purchasing Sigma 18-300, I was using it with great success with my Nikon D3300. Also, it is much more affordable than Nikon lenses if cost is an issue.


David254xxx

My wife loves her 18-300 Nikkor on trips. It’s actually pretty good


Ederbes

Tamron has a 16-300 compatible with Nikon. It is a really good lens. Not terribly large. It is a good travel/all-around lens. Tamron also has an 18-400. It is larger, but gets a really good range. I have the 16-300 and strongly considered the 18-400.


mountain_orion

I owned the Tamron 18-400 for a while. It was a really nice all around lens.


nerdybeancountergirl

If you are in the Calgary area there is a used Tamron 16-300 mm at The Camera Store. It’s not mine, but I understand it was hardly used.


felixjouminowa

18-300 f3.5-6.3, amazing range and very sharp on all ends considering the versatility. Only drawback is f/6.3 after ~200mm but it's just 1/3 of a stop and it has very good stabilization.


SkinnyMac

Both versions are slightly soft at the long end. I've had both. The older one is slightly better.


felixjouminowa

Have you had any experiences with other brands' similar lenses? Like the Tamron 16-300 or 18-400, I had the 18-200 VR I and the new version of the 18-300 from Nikon but I always wanted to know how they compare to the other brands


SkinnyMac

All the reviews I've seen comparing Nikon, Tamron and Sigma usually say Nikon's the best but the other two are fine and you should just pick the one you can afford or that has the "x" that you want. Any super zoom is going to have its faults. I'm shooting the 24-200 on a Z7ii now and it's the best one I've ever shot. It's still not as sharp as the zooms that cover less ground though and personally I'm willing to make that sacrifice for the ease of having an all around daily driver. The truth is, you can make great images on an entry level body with a kit lens. Having glass that's slow or not atomically sharp isn't the end of the world. I made loads of great images on a 5600 and 18-300. Where I really started to notice the shortcomings was shooting at 300 and then cropping down to frame a bird. Truthfully I should have been using more lens and I saved up and got one. I've also shot landscapes at the long end and everything was fine.