A. T.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of my photo friends,

I am relatively new to the DSLR world but thanks to so many of you on this forum, I have come an incredibly long way and have learned so very much from the experience and advise of you guys and gals in such a very short period of time.

I initially purchased a D3400 and quickly realized that was not enough camera to pursue my passion which is wildlife and landscapes. I gave my D3400 to my son and purchased a D500 and all I can say is, WOW!!! Okay, enough drooling. I have what I think is a very good collection of lenses to accompany my D500. 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, 16-80mm f/2.8-4, 70-200mm f/2.8, 150-600mm G2 and an 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3. I have read several comments regarding the 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 not being as sharp at certain lengths. I took several shots at different focal lengths with the lens using a tripod to take as much of the human element out of the equation and I really didn't see a noticeable difference in the lengths. Now, I must say that I don't print much if any and I don't see the need to blow up any of my photos so I really don't pixel peep; however, I do want tack sharp images. That being said, what are you guys thoughts?

Thanks so much for all of the help I have received from this amazing forum.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I use for wildlife my Nikon 200-500 and love it. I use it on a monopod, tripod and at times handheld.
I recently sold my Sigma 150-600 Sport that used for wildlife and sold it.

BebuLamar

Look like you need the 500mm f/5.6 and then an 800mm f/5.6.

A. T.

All of my lenses are Nikkor with the exception of my Tamron 150-600mm G2. that I use the most for wildlife and absolutely love its performance. I'm extremely happy with all of my lenses I wanted some feedback on the 18-300mm since I have read quite a few comments on it not being as sharp at certain focal lengths. To me, it would be a great walk around lens with focal length and minimal weight.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

I shoot Canon, but, I way say this,
Buy the best lenses Nikon makes.
The new Tamron G2 lenses and the Sigma Art series are good also.
When I first started taking pictures, I didn't think pro lenses mattered.
They do.
After I bought my first pro L lens, that was it
I sold every lens that wasn't a L and replaced them with pro quality glass.
Do yourself a favor. Go pro.
If money is a issue [it was for me] look for them used. There are deals to be had, ebay has a retrurn policy. I have bought lenses from my local craigs list.
It will save you time.
It will save you money, when you decide to upgrade, it seems you never get back what you paid for the cheaper lens
And lastly it will save you major dissapointment. That old saying, You get what you pay for, is very revelant in the world of photography.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The 18-300 is weakest @ 300 - weaker than your other lenses. If that suits you, go for it.

..

A. T.

My friend, you are so right. My Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 is a beast that I purchased on eBay and it is fabulous. It is the most expensive lens I own and it was used so I do know what you mean. I guess I need to research what to replace this 18-300mm with. I really don't need a lens with that length but it would be nice to have a faster lens for low light shooting. Of course, it's never an issue with sufficient lighting but in those indoor situations, I just bounce flash to keep my ISO to a minimum and I get tack sharp images.

A. T.

Please expand on what you mean by weak.

A. T.

And I really don't need the 300 but it's there so you know, you use it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A lower resolution performance. Sooner or later you will NEED the 300 .....

User ID

`

@OP:

You say you don't see a noticeable difference. You
add that you don't pixel peep nor make large prints.

"Noticeable" is ALL that EVER matters, but problem
is that "noticeable" can change if your end result
changes. What if you decide to get into printing ? I
won't mention peeping. Thaz just a pastime, not an
end result.

Pixel peeping is not even a reliable tool. You can
see many impressively sharp looking large prints
made from files that would fail to meet most any
geek's pixel peeping standards. The only REALLY
USEFUL test is end results.

Sooooo ... if you NEVER print, all is well, forever.
If you suspect you'll get into printing, run some
tests at wide, long and a couple of middle settings
on that zoom, at full open and 1 stop down. If you
find any weakness in the end results [prints] just
avoid those weak spots ... or leave that lens home
when shooting for prints.

`

A. T.

Okay, I gotcha, good advice. Probably save some money as well. Man, I never thought I would fall so deeply in love with this hobby. I find myself looking for stuff to photograph.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

It' winter here in Colorado.
I was looking for things to shoot inside.
Sooooo.
I bought a Miops slash kit and the Miops thingie that shoots, lighting, takes shots when it hears sounds when something breaks a laser beam.
It's kinda like a swiss army knife, it does like 6 things, it's kinda expenisve, but it's fun.
If fun sounds like filling up a water balloon, I drop in some food coloring in the balloon, waiting till it's dark so it's pitch black in the bathroom and then dropping the balloons into the tub and getting a pictures when it breaks. The Miops is for you.
I also bought a 10 gallon fish tank [no hood] and a stand at Walmart for around 30 bucks.
I filled half way up and drop stuff in it. Apples, oranges, tennis balls, or any thing else you can think of. I would advise not using a bowling ball
My set up is a tripod and a wireless shutter control. Start by, taking shots continiouly and drop waterever into the tank.
It works, it's cool and it gives you somethine to do.

User ID

"Writing off" the long end is a perfectly valid
approach to using high ratio zooms. I have a
28-300/3.5-5.6. I just think of it as a 28-200
[250 ? depends on aperture] of excellent IQ.

There is another benefit to having the long
end available. Typically, a modern high ratio
zoom is internal focusing which means they'll
focus very close, but this design involves the
loss of FL at short distances. IOW the longest
FLs might not be stellar at infinity, but those
longest FLs are just an incidental side effect
of the IF design, not suitable for all purposes.

My particular 10X zoom may not be terrific at
300mm at infinity, but leave the zoom ring on
the 300mm mark, focus it to about 6 feet and
it's quite sharp, tho its FL is reduced to about
150mm ... IOW, a sharp "short tele" portrait
lens, even tho the indicated FL is 300mm.

Rambled on a bit, but basically, the long end
that you would avoid using near infinity focus
is often still beneficial, indirectly, when using
the lens in other situations.


.

Photocraig

Tha IS THE idea! Because they don't come lookin' for you.

Back in the Hifi and Stereo System days when Preamps and HUGE speakers were the rule, I just stopped at the low-intermediate level of stuff because I couldn't HEAR teh difference. As for Printing and viewing at a normal distance (Varies by print size) you're unlikely to SEE the difference. Don't pay for what you can't SEE--unless it somebody else's money -then it's what HE can see.