New Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
WILL THIS LENS FIT NIKON D5300?
THANKS,
MICHAEL.
J.E. Manley
June 18, 2018 11:09 am
As a amateur photographer with 30 years experience using Nikon equipment almost exclusively, I am considering purchasing the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens. I currently have been using a 2005 version of the 8-200m/m lens on my well used D70s with the only real complaint being lens creep. I pursue photography strictly as a self satisfying past time and have no ambition to achieve anything beyond that. However, I do strive to use the highest quality of equipment that I can afford and plan to upgrade to a D5600 body soon. With this being said, other than price, (approximately $300.00), what is the main difference(s) between the NIK2196 and NIK2216 18-300m/m lenses? Many thanks for your input.
Michael Wollscheidt
June 17, 2018 2:51 pm
Just a quick clarification to my comment above. . .I said I own this 18-300 lens. . .I actually own the newest version of it, the Nikon 18-300 f 3.5-6.3. . .And it is serving me well, especially when I feel that changing lenses would really be a hindrance. . .And I’m not lazy. . .I don’t mind changing lenses. . .There are just times when I’d rather not have to, that’s all.
Simon C
June 14, 2017 6:40 am
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?
OK. . .My comments are for any amateur out there struggling with the opinions of “pro” photographers (and others) who write reviews of lenses. To keep this as brief as possible I’ll just address this author’s comments on “sharpness” to illustrate my main point. . .Which is. . .Sharpness is the most overrated part of lens performance. Modern lenses, even relatively cheap ones, are sharper today than expensive lenses used to be. So-called “experts” love to write reviews, full of charts and graphs, analyzing lens sharpness because its easy to test and compare with bar graphs. Perfect sharpness from corner to corner has little to do with creating a great photo. You don’t place things in the corners anyway. . .a good photo has impact and grabs the viewer. The less complicated the image, the stronger the photo. Your artistic input to the composition has far more to do with creating a strong image than what are often almost invisible differences in sharpness that can only really be shown effectively with charts and graphs. Just get out and get creative with your camera and quit looking at charts and graphs! You can add a tiny bit of sharpness in post-production if you really think you need to. By the way, I began shooting in 1975 with film SLR’s, and did plenty of “lens changing” during that time. . .I own several lenses, and do change them today as well, but I also own this 18-300 and enjoy using it when it offers me the convenience of not having to change it. . .And I am no less a photographer for doing so. . .I change lenses when I feel I need to, but also enjoy not having to at other times. . .And again, unless you’re shooting “macro”, don’t be so concerned with sharpness. . .Just get out and start creating great compositions and strong images!
Agolli
July 20, 2014 4:51 pm
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.
Tonkata
December 13, 2013 3:59 am
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…
Ethan
June 29, 2013 3:52 am
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: www.amazon.com/Case-…olife0c-20
Size/weight win!
Don B
May 29, 2013 8:29 am
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.
bouda63
March 30, 2013 4:40 am
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.
bouda63
March 29, 2013 10:57 am
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.
New Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
WILL THIS LENS FIT NIKON D5300?
THANKS,
MICHAEL.
As a amateur photographer with 30 years experience using Nikon equipment almost exclusively, I am considering purchasing the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens. I currently have been using a 2005 version of the 8-200m/m lens on my well used D70s with the only real complaint being lens creep. I pursue photography strictly as a self satisfying past time and have no ambition to achieve anything beyond that. However, I do strive to use the highest quality of equipment that I can afford and plan to upgrade to a D5600 body soon. With this being said, other than price, (approximately $300.00), what is the main difference(s) between the NIK2196 and NIK2216 18-300m/m lenses? Many thanks for your input.
Just a quick clarification to my comment above. . .I said I own this 18-300 lens. . .I actually own the newest version of it, the Nikon 18-300 f 3.5-6.3. . .And it is serving me well, especially when I feel that changing lenses would really be a hindrance. . .And I’m not lazy. . .I don’t mind changing lenses. . .There are just times when I’d rather not have to, that’s all.
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?
OK. . .My comments are for any amateur out there struggling with the opinions of “pro” photographers (and others) who write reviews of lenses. To keep this as brief as possible I’ll just address this author’s comments on “sharpness” to illustrate my main point. . .Which is. . .Sharpness is the most overrated part of lens performance. Modern lenses, even relatively cheap ones, are sharper today than expensive lenses used to be. So-called “experts” love to write reviews, full of charts and graphs, analyzing lens sharpness because its easy to test and compare with bar graphs. Perfect sharpness from corner to corner has little to do with creating a great photo. You don’t place things in the corners anyway. . .a good photo has impact and grabs the viewer. The less complicated the image, the stronger the photo. Your artistic input to the composition has far more to do with creating a strong image than what are often almost invisible differences in sharpness that can only really be shown effectively with charts and graphs. Just get out and get creative with your camera and quit looking at charts and graphs! You can add a tiny bit of sharpness in post-production if you really think you need to. By the way, I began shooting in 1975 with film SLR’s, and did plenty of “lens changing” during that time. . .I own several lenses, and do change them today as well, but I also own this 18-300 and enjoy using it when it offers me the convenience of not having to change it. . .And I am no less a photographer for doing so. . .I change lenses when I feel I need to, but also enjoy not having to at other times. . .And again, unless you’re shooting “macro”, don’t be so concerned with sharpness. . .Just get out and start creating great compositions and strong images!
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.
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…
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: www.amazon.com/Case-…olife0c-20
Size/weight win!
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.
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.
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 ?