This is an in-depth review of the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR lens that was released in June of 2012 along with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens. Thanks to the popular demand of the 18-200mm and the full-frame Nikon 28-300mm VR lenses, Nikon decided to add another superzoom to the DX line. While the 28-300mm works well on both full-frame and cropped sensor cameras, its 28mm focal length is too long for general use on cropped sensor cameras (with an equivalent focal length of 42mm). Therefore, a redesigned version of the lens with wider field of view makes the 18-300mm VR a more attractive superzoom option for DX users.
The Nikon 18-300mm DX is a variable aperture lens with a 16.7x zoom range for enthusiasts that need a single, “all-in-one” lens for everyday and travel photography. The variable aperture of f/3.5-5.6 (which changes from f/3.5 on the widest end at 18mm to f/5.6 when zoomed in), along with the lack of the gold ring on the front of the lens indicate that the lens is not on the same level as professional-grade constant aperture lenses in terms of optics, which is quite understandable, considering what it can offer in terms of zoom range.
Despite being a consumer-grade lens, the Nikon 18-300mm is beefed up with plenty of optical technologies from Nikon. The lens sports the second generation VR II (vibration reduction) technology, offering camera shake compensation equivalent to a shutter speed increase of approximately four stops, allowing to shoot at slower shutter speeds without introducing camera shake. In addition, the two “Normal” and “Active” VR modes let photographers choose how the Vibration Reduction system responds to various shooting situations. Equipped with an AF-S silent-wave focus motor, the Nikon 18-300mm lens focuses quietly and reasonably quickly in various lighting conditions. Similar to the 28-300mm lens, the Nikon 18-300mm also has a 77mm filter thread, which is a standard filter size on pro-level lenses, making it easy for photographers to use specialized filters (polarizing, neutral density, etc) on the lens without having to mess with adapter rings. To prevent issues with lens creep, Nikon provided a zoom lock on the lens exterior, similar to the ones on both 18-200mm and 28-300mm lenses.
Having a similar optical design as the 28-300mm and the 18-200mm lenses, the Nikon 18-300mm has retained a similar physical appearance as well. The same barrel layout with the zoom ring in front of the lens, same focus mode switches, lens markings, etc. The biggest difference is the weight and bulk: the lens is the biggest and the heaviest of the three. In this review, I will take a closer look at the lens, analyze its optical performance characteristics and provide comparisons to the other two Nikon superzoom siblings.
1) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Versatile 16.7x zoom lens with ED glass and VR II image stabilization offers a broad focal length range that’s perfect for travel, landscapes, portraits and distant subjects.
- Boasting the longest reach of any NIKKOR all-in-one zoom lens, it delivers the equivalent of 450mm – enough reach to bring the most distant action up close.
- Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction), engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper still images and video capture.
- 3 Aspherical Lens Elements virtually eliminate coma and other aberrations, even at wide apertures.
- M/A Focus Mode Switch Enables quick changes between manual and autofocus operation.
- Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) Enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
- 3 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) Elements offer superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at the widest aperture settings.
- Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
- Internal Focus (IF) provides fast and quiet autofocus without changing the length of the lens, retaining working distance throughout the focus range.
- Zoom Lock Switch secures the lens barrel at its minimum focal length preventing the lens from extending during transport.
- Rounded 9-Blade Diaphragm renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image areas.
Technical Specifications:
- Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
- Focal Length Range: 18-300mm
- Zoom Ratio: 16.7x
- Maximum Aperture: f/3.5
- Minimum Aperture: f/22
- Format: DX
- Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 76°
- Minimum Angle of View (DX-format): 5°20′
- Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.32x
- Lens Elements: 19
- Lens Groups: 14
- Optical Conversion Factor: 1.5x
- Compatible Format(s): DX
- VR (Vibration Reduction)/Image Stabilization: Yes
- Diaphragm Blades: 9
- Distance Information: Yes
- ED Glass Elements: 3
- Aspherical Elements: 3
- Super Integrated Coating: Yes
- Autofocus: Yes
- AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
- Internal Focusing: Yes
- Minimum Focus Distance: 1.48 ft. (0.45m) only at 300mm zoom setting
- Focus Mode: AF, Manual
- G-type: Yes
- Filter Size: 77mm
- Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
- Dimensions (Approx.): 3.3×4.7 in. (Diameter x Length) 83x120mm (Diameter x Length)
- Weight (Approx.): 29.3 oz. (830g)
- Supplied Accessories: HB-58 Bayonet Lens Hood, LC-77 Snap-on Front Lens Cap, LF-4 Rear Lens Cap, CL-1120 Soft Case
Detailed specifications for the lens, along with MTF charts and other useful data can be found in our lens database.
2) Lens Construction and Handling
As I have already pointed out in the introduction of this review, the Nikon 18-300mm is bigger and heavier than both the 18-200mm and the 28-300mm lenses. And for this reason alone, it was one of the first things that I really disliked about it. Yes, the 18-300mm does give more range than any other Nikkor lens, but it is a DX lens and it feels completely out of balance on most DX cameras. When fully extended, it gets so long that from the side it almost looks like you are using the 70-200mm f/2.8. The Nikon 18-200mm now looks small in comparison and it is not a small lens to start with. Weighing 830 grams, it is a whopping 270 grams heavier than the 18-200mm – almost as heavy as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G! I don’t know what Nikon was thinking when they designed the lens – what kind of a DX shooter would want this monstrosity? I can understand if one desires a heavy and expensive lens for performance reasons, but the 18-300mm is not a very a sharp lens. So keeping its performance characteristics in mind, it is too bulky and heavy in my opinion. Some people prefer DX cameras for weight reasons, so I guess the 18-300mm would be completely out of question for those folks.
Here is how the lens compares to the 18-200mm and 28-300mm size-wise (From left to right: Nikon 18-200mm, Nikon 18-300mm, Nikon 28-300mm):
And here they all are again, this time fully extended (From left to right: Nikon 18-200mm, Nikon 18-300mm, Nikon 28-300mm):
On a positive note, the lens is built well and feels solid in hands – certainly better than the Tamron and Sigma equivalents. It has a plastic barrel with plastic focus and zoom rings (the zoom ring is covered with rubber). Most of the recently-announced lenses by Nikon have a plastic exterior, which does not necessarily mean that the lenses are not solid. The interior of the Nikon 18-300mm contains plenty of metal to hold optical elements, although judging from the weight, it feels like the lens has nothing but glass. The lens mount is also made of solid metal, not plastic as in some cheap kit lenses like 18-55mm DX.
The Nikon 18-300mm DX should be able to withstand cold and hot temperatures, but I would not leave it under rain, extreme moisture and dusty environments. The lens is most vulnerable when zoomed in – the barrel extends out quite a bit and any dust that settles on the lens barrel can be quickly sucked into the lens, resulting in dust inside the lens and potentially on the camera sensor. While dust specs generally do not affect the sharpness of a lens, too much dust decreases lens contrast, resulting in images that look a little cloudier than normal. Note that most zoom lenses are prone to the same issue as above, including some of the professional lenses.
The zoom ring is easy to rotate from 18 to 300mm and vice versa, although it felt a little stiff at first when I started using it. Zooming in/out got a little smoother overtime, but not too much to cause the lens to creep. It takes more than a half turn to go from 18 to 300mm, which means you can zoom to a subject very quickly.
Another important thing to note is that the front part of the lens does not seem to wobble when the lens is fully extended (the 18-200mm is notorious for that). The plastic focus ring is located on the back of the lens, which I find backwards. I am used to the zoom ring being close to the camera and the focus ring to be in the front. But if you have shot with the 18-200mm or other DX lenses like Nikon 18-105mm or Nikon 18-135mm, you should have no problems with this.
3) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy
The autofocus motor of the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR is quiet and accurate at short focal lengths, even in low-light conditions, thanks to the AF-S Silent Wave Motor. Autofocus speed is relatively quick, but certainly not as fast as in pro-level lenses. As you zoom in, however, autofocus accuracy is inconsistent and can be all over the place – with plenty of hits and misses. Anything above 105mm tends to miss focus and it gets worse at 200mm and 300mm. With such a complex lens design, I can see why it is so weak on the telephoto side. Because the optical performance of the lens is rather weak at the telephoto end, and since there is a significant amount of light loss at f/5.6, the phase detect sensor often gets confused and gives false positives. Well, that’s what you get with a superzoom. Focus tracking in OK in continuous mode, again only at short focal lengths. When the lens cannot autofocus and starts to hunt, the autofocus performance gets to a crawling speed. I was able to get a couple of sharp shots at 300mm, but it was not easy. I had to constantly refocus and take pictures and eventually got a couple of keepers. Here is an image sample of a Black Bear photographed at 300mm:
It does not look bad when the image is down-sampled. But at 100% view it is not as impressive. If you are after wildlife, this lens is clearly not a good candidate – you would be much better off with the 70-300mm lens.
4) Lens Sharpness, Contrast and Color Rendition
The lens suffers from similar problems as the other superzooms – sharpness and contrast vary by focal length and aperture, with the weakest numbers at largest apertures. The performance of the lens at short focal lengths is pretty good, but anything above 105mm is average to below average. Contrast is quite poor wide open, but gets better at f/5.6 and beyond. Overall, the lens sharpnes is not bad for a superzoom when compared to the 18-200mm, but certainly nowhere close to the sharpness and contrast of pro-level lenses like Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II. You can see lens sharpness tests with comparisons to the 18-200mm and 28-300mm later down in the review. Color rendition is pretty good, I would say on par with the 28-300mm.
5) Vibration Reduction – VR II
I am a big fan of Vibration Reduction (VR) lenses – I wish every lens had VR in it, because it is one of the most useful lens features for low-light photography. The Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G comes with the second generation “VR II” image stabilization technology, which is supposed to deliver sharp images up to four stops the shutter speed. While VR seemed to work fairly well in most situations, I did not find it to be as reliable, again mostly at telephoto focal lengths. In many cases, VR seemed to go on the opposite direction of motion and the only way to address the issue was to re-engage VR and wait until it stabilizes. I have not experienced such problems on higher end lenses, so either my copy of the lens was bad, or the VR mechanism on the lens is unreliable.
6) Bokeh
One of the key advantages of the Nikon 18-300mm lens is supposed to be its 9 blade diaphragm, which should result in better-looking round bokeh. In my experience, the number of blades on the latest Nikon lenses does not really matter, since the aperture blades are rounded. I have done some extensive bokeh tests and comparisons and I really could not see major differences between 9 blade and 7 blade rounded diaphragms. Now if you compare old straight aperture lenses with fewer blades to the new rounded ones, the difference is quite evident. In fact, I prefer rounded 7 blade diaphragm to a straight 9 blade one – try to test an older lens and see for yourself.
As for the bokeh on the 18-300mm, I found it to be similar to bokeh on the 18-200mm and 28-300mm lenses, which is quite nervous. In short, none of the superzooms will give you great-looking, “creamy” bokeh. The shapes of background highlights are defined and often layered. Here is the best case scenario, with a Marmot photographed at 300mm, wide open:
Again, nothing to be excited about. For these kinds of wildlife shots, I would rather shoot with my favorite Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S. It is significantly sharper even with the TC-14E and it produces absolutely beautiful bokeh.
7) Vignetting
Besides sharpness issues, the Nikon 18-300mm also suffers from heavy vignetting. There is plenty of vignetting at 18mm, which is significantly reduced towards 50mm, but comes back again at telephoto ranges. Take a look at the following chart that shows vignetting at different focal lengths and apertures:
While vignetting is easy to remove in Lightroom or Photoshop, it is still another process to run during post-processing. Take a look at the following worst-case scenario vignetting example, where the extreme corners are darkened by over 2 stops:
8) Ghosting and Flare
Ghosting and flare are handled quite well, depending on the focal length and where you place the source of light. Here is an extreme example with the sun in the top left frame:
And here is an example with the sun in the top right frame at sunset:
Not bad, I cannot see any apparent ghosting and flares in the image. As you zoom in towards the telephoto range, however, ghosting can become an issue.
9) Distortion
This lens, just like both the 28-300mm and the 18-200mm has lots of distortion throughout its range, which is expected for a 16.7x zoom lens. At 18mm, it suffers the most, producing images with very noticeable barrel distortion. As you zoom in towards 28mm, barrel distortion immediately switches to pincushion distortion and stays that way all the way to 300mm:
Pincushion distortion reaches its peak at 105mm and then diminishes again towards 300mm. Distortion is also something that is easy to fix in post-processing. Lightroom 4.3 already has built-in support for this lens, so you can fix it with a single click of a button using the Lightroom Lens Correction sub-module.
10) Chromatic Aberration
One of the big downsides of this lens, is the amount of chromatic aberration or color/purple fringing that is present in the images. My sample had a strong amount of CA present above 28mm, as can be seen from the below chart:
These issues can be easily corrected in Photoshop or Lightroom, now that the lens is fully supported by Adobe.
11) Focus Breathing
Similar to the Nikon 28-300mm and 18-200mm lenses, the lens does suffer from a “focus breathing” problem. Basically, in order to keep the minimum focus distance shorter, Nikon made a few adjustments to the lens design, which resulted in shorter effective focal lengths when shooting close objects. If your subject is very close at minimum distance, the 300mm on the Nikon 18-300mm will be equivalent to around 135mm, which is less than twice. As the distance between you and the subject grows, the field of view narrows. When I was doing my tests between 2-2.5 meters, the field of view at 300mm was equivalent to around 150mm. In order to get the full 300mm out of this lens, your subject would have to be very far away, with your focus set to infinity. Even at a 50 meter distance, you would still get around 275mm. As I have stated above, this lens is not a good candidate for photographing birds or other small wildlife. If you want to get close, the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR or Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G DX VR are much better candidates, since they can get to true 300mm.
Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests.
12) Sharpness Test
Take a look at the following sharpness charts that illustrate the optical performance of the lens at different focal lengths from 18mm to 300mm:
The Nikon 18-300mm starts out fairly well at 18mm, with good center sharpness. Mid-frame is pretty average and corners are a little worse in comparison.
At 28mm, the image gets weaker, especially in the extreme corners.
Zooming in to 50mm does not change the picture much.
At 105mm, there is a pretty significant drop of resolution.
Even worse at 200mm.
At 300mm we get the worst sharpness – image quality suffers pretty badly and the resolving power of the lens is greatly diminished. These results are pretty typical for a superzoom though. The other two lenses are also weak in the long end.
13) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 18-200mm @ 18mm
Let’s see how the new 18-300mm compares to the 18-200mm VR II at the shortest focal length of 18mm:
Seems like both lenses perform about the same on the short end.
14) Nikon 18-300mm @ 105mm vs Nikon 18-200mm @ 135mm
Another comparison between the two lenses at 105mm and 135mm focal lengths:
Zoomed in to 105mm and 135mm, the Nikon 18-200mm seems to perform better overall, most notably in the center and mid-frame. The corners on the 18-300mm look better at larger apertures.
15) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 18-200mm @ 200mm
Here is what happens at the long end @ 200mm:
And looks like it is the same story at 200mm, where the 18-200mm maintains an edge over the 18-300mm in terms of sharpness in the center and mid-frame. Corners look the same on both.
16) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 18-200mm Summary
While both lenses seem to perform well wide open, the Nikon 18-200mm shows better performance in the center and mid-frame when zoomed in a little. The 18-200mm maintains better sharpness at long focal lengths and it can also resolve more detail at its longest focal length of 200mm. In addition, it also has less distortion and chromatic aberration than the 18-300mm.
17) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 28mm
Now let’s take a look at how the 18-300mm compares to the full-frame Nikon 28-300mm lens:
At 28mm, the Nikon 18-300mm yields better sharpness throughout the image. The Nikon 28-300mm suffers from a strong amount of field curvature, which is why there is a big difference in performance between center and mid-frame.
18) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 50mm
Let’s see what happens at 50mm:
At 50mm, the Nikon 28-300mm catches up in center performance, but still suffers in mid-frame and corners at large apertures.
19) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 105mm
Another comparison at 105mm:
At 105mm, the Nikon 28-300mm takes over the center sharpness, but still loses everywhere else.
20) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 200mm
Zoomed in 200mm:
Corners still suffer at 200mm on the 28-300mm lens.
21) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 300mm
Zoomed in to 100% @ 300mm:
Lastly, at 300mm, both lenses seem to perform about the same.
22) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm Summary
Judging from the above test results, the Nikon 18-300mm seems to perform overall better than the 28-300mm. It has better mid-frame and corner frame sharpness at all short focal lengths. Zoomed in, however, both lenses start to look about the same.
Keep in mind that the above test is not an apples to apples comparison. The Nikon 18-300mm was tested in DX crop mode, while the 28-300mm was tested in FX (full-frame mode). This is the main reason why the 18-300mm scored better in mid-frame – it does not cover the same area as the 28-300mm (see DX vs FX). If the 28-300mm was also tested in DX crop mode, it would have performed better.
23) Nikon 18-300mm vs Nikon 24-70mm
Just for fun, I am including a quick comparison between the 18-300mm and the 24-70mm, so that you could see how different the performance of these lenses is at the same apertures. Here is a comparison at 50mm:
Obviously, this is not a fair comparison, because we are comparing a consumer superzoom to a professional mid-range zoom. But it is a good contrast to show what to expect from pro-level glass and understand the compromises you have to make with the 18-300mm.
24) Summary
As you may already know from my review of the Nikon 28-300mm VR, I am not a fan of superzoom lenses. Yes, they have their uses for people that travel or do not want to change lenses, but they come with too many problems for my taste. I have tried every single superzoom Nikon made so far, as well as some third party superzooms, and I found none of them to be appealing for my photography needs. In fact, I used to own the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens (the original version) a long time ago and I got rid of it fairly quickly, because I was not satisfied with its performance. With so many optical problems like distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, bad bokeh and decreased sharpness, I found myself spending more time editing pictures and not being fully satisfied with them, than enjoying photography. Most of these optical issues can now be easily removed or reduced today thanks to the automated lens correction module of Lightroom, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth.
That’s not to say I do not enjoy zoom lenses. I own and love a number of excellent zoom lenses like Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 24-70mm f/2.8G (the 24-120mm f/4 VR is also excellent) and 70-200mm f/2.8G VR. And when I used to have DX gear, I loved shooting with superb zoom lenses like Nikon 17-55mm, 12-24mm and 16-85mm. However, you cannot compare those lenses to the 18-300mm or the like – they are a world better in comparison. Just take a look at the lens comparisons section of this review and see how the 18-300mm fares against the 24-70mm and you will quickly see what I mean.
Why so much criticism towards the 18-300mm and the superzooms, you might ask? I want people to know what to expect from such lenses before they decide to put a thousand dollars of their hard earned money on them. I have met a lot of beginners and photo enthusiasts during my workshops, various seminars and local photography club meetings. To my surprise, many photographers end up with such lenses as 18-200mm and 28-300mm, just because someone else recommended that “they would never have to buy another lens”. I often see more people with a 18-200mm than with a 16-85mm. Why? Because most of them do not know any better (heck, most of them never even get out of the “Auto” mode). Unfortunately, many of us get lured by the idea of owning a single “do it all” lens without understanding the consequences. And since the demand for such lenses is unfortunately high, Nikon keeps making more of them and updating them often, rather than giving us lightweight and good performing DX primes and zooms. As I have pointed out in the comments section of the why DX has no future article, Nikon is the one that is sinking the DX ship. Instead of giving us monstrous and under-performing lenses like the 18-300mm, why can’t it concentrate on better lenses? We need more lightweight, optically great and cheap DX lenses. But enough of my ranting, let’s get down to the conclusion!
In summary, as you can clearly see from this review, the Nikon 18-300mm is a very average lens with average performance overall. It is optically worse than the 18-200mm and it is much bigger and heavier in comparison. It has plenty of distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting and other issues, but worst of all – its optical performance and focus accuracy at long focal lengths is disappointing. Personally, I would rather opt for the 18-105mm kit lens or the 18-200mm, both of which are cheaper and better optically. Add the focus breathing “feature” and it becomes more like a 18-135mm lens, so you are not getting the full 300mm anyway (except if shooting objects at infinity).
25) Where to buy and availability
B&H is currently selling the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens for $996 (as of 07/15/2013) and has it in stock.
26) More Image Samples
All Images Copyright © Photography Life, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
Nikon 18-300mm VR
- Optical Performance
- Features
- Bokeh Quality
- Build Quality
- Focus Speed and Accuracy
- Handling
- Image Stabilization
- Value
- Size and Weight
Photography Life Overall Rating
May I know why do you use the 16-35mm f/4G VR when you already have the 14-24mm f/2.8G and the 24-70mm f/2.8G. Are there any particular reasons for using the lens?
Amir, it takes filters and I use it on a different body…
At the end of the day, despite your issues with the lens, you still managed to produce a fantastic set of photos. That should be worth nothing. Maybe the photographer can overcome the weaknesses of the lens somewhat.
Honestly, once edited and processed the photos look great and maybe for the general population it is enough for them..
He did, but did you read the portion when he says he had to take tons of pictures at tele end to get a couple in sharp? I think even for general population if you take 100 pictures and get 5 that are decent, will get frustrating easily. But with this lens, it will easily get frustrated even to beginners, when the light goes down and your /never-have-to-buy-another-lens superzoom/ start hunting and unable to find AF. That is when beginners start curse
Brian, I guess it depends on what you want to do with the photo. Everything looks good on the web, when images are downsampled. Even iPhone images look great this small :) I guess it all depends on what you want to do with your photographs. At the end of the day though, why would you want to spend so much money on a lens that does not deliver? There are far better alternatives out there that will do a much better job – that’s essentially what I am trying to say in this review :)
True that! Don’t take me wrong, I agree with you 100%; unfortunately this lens will sell like crazy probably; regardless. At least there are you and others trying to at least make aware for others how to make an informed decision…!
Brian, that’s true – like I said, I am always surprised to see so many superzoom lenses out there. People buy such fine cameras and put crappy optics on them – sometimes makes me want to cry :)
Reminds me of the guy that had a Nikon D3s with the 18-200mm mounted on it. I asked him about the lens and he had no clue – he was happy with his pictures…
Sound Logic… we don’t need crap optics. Quality is what we are all after. Just need your suggestion – on my lighter DX body Nikon D5100 which should i go for 55-300 mm or 70-300mm. I will be shooting Landscape mainly.
fantastic review I don’t have this lens but i do have 55-300mm … I am hobbiest and been working with SLRs for around 4 years … btw, very good and informational site .. i would like to share some of my pics ( mostly nature ) with you .. if that acceptable .. Thanks.
Thank you for your feedback!
I purchased this lens shortly after its release and as a amateur photographer, I am very pleased with it. Lets face it, this lens, like the 18-200mm, was built more for the amateurs because most professionals would not even use a lens with that kind of range. As amateurs, we don’t expect the same things from our photo’s as professional photographer.
I had a 70-300mm Tamron and the 18-200mm Nikon lens before purchasing this lens and sold both on eBay after buying it. When I used the 70-300, it seemed like I always was changing to take a landscape photo and when I had the 18-200 on the camera, that was the time I saw wildlife that I wanted to photograph. I missed many shots that I wanted because I didn’t have the right lens with me or the moment was gone by the time I changed the lens.
I have a D90 and the lens feels fine on the camera. I get some really awesome photo’s and some just so-so, but mostly it’s my photograhy skills that cause the bad ones, not the lens. I think most hobbyist or amateur photographers would be pleased with this lens.
I am glad you are enjoying the lens. The point of this review is not to show what a professional wants versus an amateur. I have used a number of excellent lenses that are much cheaper, smaller in size and have superior optics than this one. The 18-300mm is a bag of compromises, so what I am trying to do is educate our readers, so that they fully understand the limitations of the lens before they buy it.
If you have never handled any other lens aside from the Tamron 70-300mm and the Nikon 18-200mm/18-300mm, you are missing out a lot…
Too much range for a single lens, very heavy and very big, I don’t doubt it will found a lot of buyers, but IMHO it is not the better lens to have for a DX camera.
Agreed – that’s a good summary of what I am trying to say :)
Let’s talk about serious things now! When a review of the 70-200mm F4 VR? :)
Anthony, I am expecting to get it sometime this week, with some other 70-200mm lenses :)
Ok. Thank you Nasim. I stay tuned! ;)
Dear Nasim,
A quick question.. Are there any strong reasons to go for this lens over the tamron 18-270 mm PZD version?
I bet his reply will be neither are desirable..
Both suck equally the same, except the Tamron is even worse optically.
I bought one of this as soon as they come out too, and so far I am quite happy with it! Evidently you have some real issues with super-zoom lenses but I think they are super-handy. That changing lenses all the time if quite a hassle! I love the one lens for all, and like I said so far, I am very happy with it! Also like someone else said, for all your “unhappiness” with this lens, your sample pictures sure look great to me!
Maryvel, may I ask a question – what is the point of buying a DSLR if you do not want to change lenses? There are many great point and shoot cameras with superzoom lenses that you never have to worry about changing. Isn’t the beauty of an SLR system in the ability to change lenses? Isn’t flexibility and choice the reason why want an SLR in first place? I change lenses a lot and I don’t have a problem with that, not sure why some people are so scared of doing it or find it so inconvenient…
Nasim, I have no problems with changing lenses when I am doing a photo shoot for example. I own a few prime lenses from 35mm to 85mm, macro and even a fisheye lens. So changing lenses isn’t a problem for me either, but for everyday use, or for a trip, I certainly prefer the super-zoom. Less to carry and less chances to miss the perfect shot while you are changing lenses.
Yes that’s the whole point. The choice is what matters most – Quality or Convenience.
I would prefer a 55-300mm or 70-300mm over 18-300mm lens anyday.
People who think that Nikon 18-300mm is too heavy should definitely build more muscles.
Harald, I have no problem hand-holding my Nikon 200-400mm and I have handled much heavier lenses than that. Muscles have nothing to do with this. The 18-300mm is the heaviest DX lens produced to date and it does not balance well as an “everyday” lens on any DX camera. If this was a 300mm f/2.8 DX lens, I would not have complained. But it is meant to be a “do it all” lens, for which it is too big and heavy – that’s what I am trying to say here.
Well, Nasim, muscles was more or less a joke. I have used 18-300 mm as an “everyday” lens on my DX camera D5100 from day 1, and I love it. This summer I used it even at a weddding, and the bride and groom was nothing else than very,very satisfied with all the 250 pictures. So it is a “do it all” lens for me and not to big and heavy (for instance compared to AF-S NIKKOR 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED VR II) at all.
And as you know, some like the mother and some like the daughter :-)
Overall, it definitely seems for DX system it’s not worth to get a superzoom like the 18-300mm. Afterall, if you look through your photolibrary, when was hte last time you needed 200-300mm range on a DX lens? If I was shooting DX, Id’s probably carry a 35mm f1.8DX, kit lens, and a 70-300mm VR. 17-55mm lens is good, if you have a heavier/larger DX body.
Brian, I agree. If I were a DX shooters, I would want to use better, lighter and cheaper lenses. The 35mm f/1.8 and 70-300mm VR are both excellent choices for a DX shooter.
Hay Nasim
good to see you back in action.
Please help and advise your suggestion based on below , really need your help as I am waiting for your to come back.
case : I have to do theater photography low light and move fast from one corner to other of stage some time, I have budget for any one of the below to upgrade, I have D5100+ 50 mm 1.8G
Choice 1 – 24-70 – f2.8 G
Choice 2- 24-120 f4 G
Choice 3 – 24-70 Tamaron with VR
choice 4- upgrade to D600
Please suggest , I am totally backing your advise and holding my decision for a long
regards
MM
That’s a tough choice. I would probably go for the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G first, since you need good low-light AF performance. Then I would get the D600 second.
Dear Nasim
many thanks for the advise and fast reply . Normally full open aperture till what shutter speed you think is best based on above situation with no tripod if i put to manual mode, as this is a heavy lens as well and 2.8 and no VR
with my 50 mm i have tried a bit and got fair result till 1/20.
regards
MM
I am afraid VR won’t really matter with fast moving subjects – you will need to stay with high shutter speeds to freeze motion. In low-light, you will need three things the most: AF speed (which Nikon 24-70mm has), fast shutter speed (shooting wide open at f/2.8 or faster) and good high ISO performance. The latter is a problem with the D5100, but it depends on how much noise you can tolerate. The D5100 can do great up to ISO 1600, but gets noisy above that. VR is only good for stationary subjects and can be useful if you pan motion in slow shutter speed. Other than that, AF performance and fast shutter speed will be the key…
Dear Nasim
wow that a real clue, do you think in stead o going to high ISO as 1600 i can compensate to some extent with exposure compensation by keeping may be about +1.
what you say..
regards
MM
Dear Nasim,
I would like to buy 18-300mm lens by next week, I have D300s and i’m amateur photographer, right now i’m using Sigma 70-300 no VR, I don’t mind using heavy lens, or to get two different lens changing all the time. I shoot all type subject from landscape, birds or portrait.
What would you suggest?
Best regards,
Max
Dear Nasim,
I would like to buy 18-300mm lens by next week, I have D300s and i’m amateur photographer, right now i’m using Sigma 70-300 no VR, I don’t mind using heavy lens, or to get two different lens changing all the time. I shoot all type subject from landscape, birds or portrait.
What would you suggest 18-300 or two different lens?
Best regards,
Max
Ha I knew I recognized that house as a Stapleton house, and sure enough I scroll down and see you live in Denver! Great review as I’ve had my eye on this lens
Regards,
Eric
Hi Nasim,
Great and informative article, however, I have found that it’s hard to be objective when writing articles like this. For my purposes this lens is excellent. I use it primarily for two things: shooting video and my ‘all-in-one’ travel photo lens.
For video it’s the ultimate lens as in many situations (I’m talking professionally here) there is not time to change lenses – unless you are doing a controlled shoot like a commercial (in which case I would use primes exclusively unless a zoom was needed/wanted). When shooting almost anything else changing lenses introduces a time issue, not too mention getting dust, dirt, etc introduced inside and on the sensor much quicker. Also the portability of extra lenses can be an issue as well, who wants to carry all that stuff around if you don’t have to. So while I bring all my lenses with me on a typical (uncontrolled) shoot, I usually leave them in the car as it’s rare for me to change on the fly (of course anticipating what my needs are will determine what eventually happens but 95% of the time…)
And this may sound odd to some of you but I like a heavier camera, and don’t mind the weight of this lens at all. For me the extra weight helps to keep the camera steadier and also gives me something to grasp onto while shooting.
As for travel, most of it is with my family for our family travel website/TV show KinderJet.com, so we are dealing with getting images for both web, print and TV AND dealing with our kids, and trying to change lenses is next to impossible. I do bring my 35mm 1.8 DX & 85mm 1.8 FX along to have some options in those rare times when I have time to think about things like that. But generally I don’t have time to manage that so it’s just much easier to use this all in one lens.
For the record, I had the 18-200 DX and produced many excellent images, even ones blown up to poster size. I still have the 18-105 DX which also does a fab job (but it now lives on another body that my wife uses). I also had the 70-300 FX which produced some great shots as well, but I didn’t enjoy having to go back and forth changing lenses for a shot or two. I even had the Tokina 11-16 for a brief stint and while I liked it a lot, the 18-300 more or less covers that range quite well (other than the 2.8 aperture)
So at the end of the day for me this is a great lens that does what I need it to do. It may not work for every situation or for other photogs but it works for me. I sold the 70-300 and 18-200 and don’t miss them.
I’m in full agreement with you, Paul. I bought the lens from day one , and I have nothing to regret.
The lens is excellent as “all in one”, and as you say: “the extra weight helps to keep the camera steadier”.
The weight is 830 g, and about half the weight of for instance Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II ( 1540 g), which I also love to use. In a wedding last summer I used only 18-300 mm on my D5100, and left the 70-200 mm and 50 mm f/1.4 at home. The bride and the groom was 100 % satisfied with all imagesd (several hundreds) .
So I am greatful that I bought the lens before I read any review.
Is sharp picture depends only on the lens used or the camera also? what if I use this lens on Nikon D40x vs Nikon D 7000 vs D800E? Will there be a difference in picture sharpness? Thanks.
Hi Nasim,
I have a Nikon D7000. Can you suggest a zoom lens that will give give the sharpest pictures. Currently I own 18-200mm and the pictures are not super sharp. Dose short range zooms give sharper pictures than long range zooms. Thanks.
I currently have a Tamron 18-270 PZD (latest version) and want to upgrade. Currently stuck between Nikon18-300 or Tamron 24-70 VC. Any recommendations?
(I have a D7000)
From what I’ve heard the Tamron 24-70 is a pro level lens. I don’t believe the same can be said of the Nikon 18-300. If the Tamron covers the length you need, it seems like the better option since I would bet that it outperforms in the range it covers and is a constant 2.8 also.
You don’t believe that Nikon 18-300 mm is a pro level lens like the Tamron, well it’s up to you.
It’s not necessary for me to believe because I have the super Nikon zoom lens , and for me it has been a pro level lens from day 1, several months before I read any of the questionable cut down reviews.
I learnt my lesson with superzooms years ago with the Tamron 28-300XR. I bought 1 for me and 1 for my wife. As we both got more experienced neither of us like it. I still have mine in my work bag along with an old D70s. My wife’s lens went to my mother in law. There were just too many compromises – contrast – not wide enough on DX – not sharp enough – slow AF (f/6.3) at the long end). Every time I’d take a picture with the thing, I’d wish I was using something else. In the end I’m using a variety of lenses but 95% of my shooting is done with 18-70dx and 70-300VR (each hanging off a separate D90 body). Specialised stuff: Macro with Tamron 90 or Nikon 28-105D (if I need some zoom and macro is secondary), 50mm prime for wide field astro, Sigma 8-16 for ultrawide (my latest toy). Much better pictures. Much more versatile. Better IQ. Much happier.
Hi Nasim!
You have said something very new to me… The “focus breathing problem”. How does it work? Is it in such a way, that focusing on the distant object i have a narrow field of view, but just changing the focus point to the close object, without touching the zoom ring, I get a wider field of view?
… and one more thing. While talking about sharpness, it would be very helpful for the readers to show them true samples – not just downsampled images, but comparisions made with different lenses, for instance – the same scene made with two different lenses, then crop from the center of each image and compare 1:1, then similar comparision of the crops made from corners. Then anyone can have an imagination, what the “sharpness” mean and what is the point of comparision. And what is really important (or not ;-). As an amateur I cannot say the same about those charts…
again too much negative comments about 18-300. not all people afford f2.8 lenses and FX cameras.
Hi Nasim,
I regularly go through your website as well as articles that you feature. It is a great educative site and a good learning experience for photographers like me. After reading your article on Nikon 18-300 I am in a fix. I am in a habit of going to high altitude expeditions and take photographs. In this kind of expeditions I can’t afford to change lenses very frequently. Neither can I afford to carry a heavy tripod along. Before I read your article I was planning between Nikon 18-300 and Tamron 18-270. But now I am in a dilemma. Can you suggest me a good all in one superzoom lens? If I have to amongst the above two, which one will render less chromatic aberration and better autofocus capabilities?
Hi Nasim,
I am a traveler, not an expert but I do take a lot of pictures during my numerous trips around the world . I shoot mainly landscape, architecture and wildlife. I own this lens, coming from a nikon 18-200 and a Sigma 120-400. I already sold the first one and am ready to get rid of the second one because it is so cumbersome and heavy. I do have a lot of rejects for all kind of reasons, mainly because of the guy who holds the camera. But I can get some excellent ones (luck ?), even sharper than what I was expecting. THE MAIN DECISIVE ADVANTAGE I find with this lens is comfort : I don’t change it, ever (I have a nikkor 16-85 on my D90 second body). I want a superbridge, in fact !
I shoot with a D7000 and am going to upgrade for a D7100. At least on paper, my 120-400 is becoming useless (as compared to now) with the 1.3 crop feature and I look for a lot of keepers : better focusing on this camera, no more soft angles because of the limited surface used in the center of the sensor with the crop mode.
I was thinking buying a 70-200 f/4, but I am not sure that the supplement (money, weight, volume in my bags) was worth the improvement for my use (I never print photos, I put them on line full HD). But at image center, in correct lighting conditions, is it much better than the reviewed lens ? The reviews I read (including yours) seem to say no.
Can you give me your advice, am I dead wrong ?
Hi again Nassim, on the subject of appraisal (number of stars given in each category)
You give 2 stars to this lens in Handling and in Size and Weight. You give 5 stars to the 70-200 f/4 in the same categories.
I feel this is unfair. The Handling part should include the flexibility of use (appropriate to a given number of situations without switching lens) and then, this one should gain at least one more if not 2 stars in this category!
For Weight ans Size, if I am not mistaking (I looked at both) they are very comparable, the 70/200 being much longer. Only, you take the 70-200 f/2.8 as a reference in the second case, which is kind of unfair for the 18-300, where you take, I assume, the 18-200 as the reference.
Am I wrong again ?
it doesn’t matter how many stars Nassim gives, it’s his personal opinion. Concerning 18-300 mm it’s consequently negative. I have both 18-300 mm and 70-200 mm f/2.8 and both lenses are almost exactly the same concerning size (at 300 mm) and weight. 18-300 mm is my favourite lens, and with top score.
Hi Harald,
I think it matters. If not, there is no point for him to do that, and further more he is a respected expert and his opinion counts.
A further proof should be that you seem to place this lens on top, which is not, obviously, his conclusion (different criteria, i’m sure). On the other end, we seem to share the same criteria. There must be a reason (maybe we are both stupid, after all).
Mine looks sometimes like having trouble with the VR, which doesn’t seem to be efficient. And distorsion is not corrected properly with DXO Optics Pro. Do you get the same trouble ?
“Mine looks sometimes like having trouble with the VR, which doesn’t seem to be efficient. And distorsion is not corrected properly with DXO Optics Pro. Do you get the same trouble ?”
I have no such trouble, all seems to function very well. For a month ago I had an accident with the lens mounted on my D5100, it fell down on the concrete from a height of 1 m. The lens hood and the UV filter was smashed to pieces. But to my big surprice the camera and 18-300 mm lens was undamaged, and was just as brilliant as before. I have got it checked by a Nikon services. They have replaced one of the contacts between the camere and the lens, but otherwise everything functions perfectly.
I do not have the critical eye that a professional photographer has, but to my eye, this lens is wonderful on my D7000, and my D800. It is the only lens I need. Yes, even on my D800. This lens may not be perfect, but it is close enough to perfect for me. I don’t have the unlimited funds for the “perfect set” of 14 prime lenses.
Good to hear that you are satisfied with the super zoom lens 18-300 mm. It is waste of money to “replace” Nikon 18-300 mm with the “perfect set” of 14 or more prime lenses. I have compared portraits taken with Nikon D5100 using Nikon 18-300 mm, AF-S NIKKOR 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED VR II, and AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G. In this competition Nikon 18-300 mm was very close to the professional lens 70-200 mm and 50 mm.
My old kit was the 18-55 plus the 70-300 VR. My new kit is the 35 prime plus the 18-300. I had used the 70-300 extensively for wildlife, including birding. I read other reviews stating that the 18-300 was just as sharp in the center at 300mm as the 70-300, and that has been my experience as well. Distortion is corrected in-camera for this lens on a modern body, which is certainly worth mentioning. Bokeh in my experience has generally been far better than the example shot from this article. The only major weakness I’ve noticed is the vignetting. That’s avoidable if you know the apertures and lengths at which it appears, or of course correctable later (a convenience hit). It also just isn’t noticeable with a lot of subjects and compositions.
I really don’t get the size/weight complaints. This thing is nearly identical in size to the 28-300. In the most important attribute to me – closed length – it is smaller than the 70-300 as well. I don’t know why I would care about diameter or zoomed length, and weight has never bothered me in the least. It is volume and shape that make a camera difficult to carry. Carrying additional lenses isn’t exactly size-free or weight-free, so where is that factored into the comparison? I also think pros discount the time and hassle cost of changing lenses, because it feels intrinsic to the process to them. But unless you’re in control of your subjects, the environment, and your own schedule, changing lenses will cost you shots no matter how professional you are. Call it part of the process if you like – you still lost the shot.
The 18-300 is an incredible lens for a certain kind of shooter – and there appear to be plenty of us to support its production. We know what we’re buying and we know what we’re accomplishing with it. We know how the experience and results compare to our alternatives. And we love it.
Oh, and the D5100, 18-300, 35 prime, charger and SB-400 flash fit into this dinky little case: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Logic-SLRC-1Z-Camera-Holster/dp/B0009KVT2Y
Size/weight win!
My opinion… I used to have the 70-300 lens and it was awesome, but got stolen. Before it i had the 55-200. Anyway… The 18-300mm is a versitile lens. I am an antropohogist, so i shoot a lot of gatherings and festivals, This lens gives great reach in super short time in which you can’t possibly change lenses. You never miss a shot. So it is compromise for quality, but i have not seen any difference from the preformance of the 18-105. My pictures ralely get printed, most commonly end up on a powerpoin presentation, wich being projected by a 1920×1080 rez beamer, it makes no sence of having a hiper hi deff ulta quality lens. This lens is CONsumer, not PROsumer. The 18-200mm is better i agree, but often i need just that extra reach and it’s just nice to have, even being that tap bit soft. Main point here must be – Will you print your photos? If yes, this might not be your lens. For some serious shots i use a Tokina 11-16mm and a good old nikkor 50mm f1.8 D lens. So what i want to say is I like the 18-300mm as an all rounder and with the D7100 it delivers. Can be better, but from 18mm to the 150mm it is perfectly usable,, and yet you have the extra reach just standin there…
Hi,
I own a 18-300 mm lens and though I have taken nice pictures I am planning to get a different lens. I use a Nikon D 7000. Based on Nasim’s lens reviews, I am considering the 70-200 mm f4. Is this combination good for landscape photography. Hope I get a response. Thanks.
Hi! Very insightful review from a professional photographer.
I was wondering how does this compare to the newer and lighter 18-300mm f/6.3?
I am an amateur photographer who’s medium is mainly Instagram. I understand the compromises but I’ve also noticed that the maximum image quality or “perceptual” megapixels after its massive downsizing is only about 2-3 megapixels.
What is your opinion?