jtbdal

I am a relatively new DLSR photographer who has a Nikon 7500 DLSR and 3 lenses (AF-P Nikkor 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 G DX VR, Tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 Tele-Macro and an AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 4.5-6 GII ED DX VR) all of which are new and barely used.

I shoot landscapes, Flowers, sports, people and architecture. Am considering trading some or all of the above lenses for a refurbished by Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR II Lens.

Does this make sense or am I crazy.

Would appreciate the input of the more experienced photographers.

Thanks.

BebuLamar

You would have the convenient of using only one lens but otherwise would not gain in term of quality or speed. You would tend to lose money trading in.

ELNikkor

The Tamron should satisfy your "reach" needs. The 55-200 Nikon is redundant. I would get rid of the 55-200 Nikon, and get Nikon's 10-20 AF-P lens. That way, you'd have all the range you could ever need. Don't be so put off by changing lenses. It only takes a few seconds, and you only shoot at 1 focal length at a time anyhow. You'll have better quality images all the way around if you are not trying to do a "1 lens fits all situations". The D7500 is an awesome camera, and should provide excellent quality. If you do post processing, set the Quality to Raw+jpeg for landscapes, so you can have more options in post processing. When you shoot sports, it is possible the buffer will have trouble keeping up. A friend of mine just shoots jpeg large and Fine for soccer, as he finds RAW is not necessary and would fill up his drives and cards too fast.

CO

I stay away from superzoom lenses. The engineers have to compromise too much in the optical design to achieve the long zoom range. They usually have a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle settings and a lot of pincushion distortion at long focal lengths. Chromatic aberration is another problem. LensTip does extensive lens testing. They test lenses in all of these categories. Here is a link to the test. When you get to the bottom of the pages click on the different categories.

https://www.lenstip.com/423.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-300_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR-Introduction.html

1. Introduction
2. Pictures and parameters
3. Build quality and image stabilization
4. Image resolution
5. Chromatic and spherical aberration
6. Distortion
7. Coma, astigmatism and bokeh
8. Vignetting
9. Ghosting and flares
10. Autofocus
11. Summary
12. Sample shots

You might want to consider some prime lenses. You have so many zoom lenses already. They usually have almost zero distortion and they have large max apertures - usually f/1.8 or f/1.4. Tamron's SP series prime lenses all have vibration compensation, a metal lens barrel, and are fully weather sealed. I have their 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens. The combination of vibration compensation and f/1.8 max. aperture make it a great low-light lens.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

like CO said... "I stay away from superzoom lenses."

I only use 3x zoom optics... and only f/2.8 or faster primes...

jtbdal I would seriously look at the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX Nikkor prime...

However if you are nervous about a non-VR lens then I would suggest the very cost effective Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM for Nikon. I use this extensively and it allows you to get very close...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

I would immediately sell you those long zoom lens... and replace them with the AF 70-300 f/6.4P VR version. Again I use this extensively... best worth/value for DX long glass...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1275036-REG/nikon_20062_afp_dx_nikkor_70_300mm.html

This is all you will every need for quite some time...
Until you move up to a full frame FX body.

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey jtbdal

JR45 Loc: Montgomery County, TX

A recent thread on the 18-300.
I like mine.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-595512-1.html

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Know what you want to do. Do your research. Then pull the trigger. You don't need someone to tell you what to do or seek their approval.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

I have the lens. It is convenient and takes acceptable photos, I know a relative thing for the particular shooter. It is a dust magnet and must not be sealed very good. With the experience I have I would not buy it again but if I were going to try to use one lens as a walk around lens, I would do some research and get one with better sealing. A Tamron SP or perhaps something in the Sigma line.

BebuLamar

Agree and thus not posting a question on the UHH. I don't think anyone would know better than the person who would buy and use the equipment. But since the OP asked I guess he/she wanted some recommendation?

eagle80 Loc: Kutztown, PA

Sell them here on UH.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

You are not crazy but you have to straighten your thoughts. Your 18-55 is a very nice kit lens and it will do its part if you do yours. The 55-200 does also a great job. In regard to the 70-300 I prefer the lens made by Nikon and it comes with VR.
What you have will give you lots of mileage and yes, you can shoot some nice "macros" with them especially the 70-300.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Your 55-200mm lens is probably not worth selling. It is a good lens just keep it. Indeed I would just keep your lenses. Skip the 18-300mm wide range zoons are not that great. Add a new lens with new capabilities. (e.g. long telephoto, macro, super wide angle etc.) If you would like a general purpose lens the Nikon 16-80mm f 2.8-4 is a great lens. This lens is on my camera 90% of the time.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and the latest/new FX 70-300 Nikon lens.......make sense to me if you are at all serious.
.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

for what i do i really like my 18-300 3.5-6.3 Nikon lens...It is rarely off my camera...I am sure that if i was to invest in a lot of primes, etc i could get a little sharper photos...but the price difference and the inconvenience of changing lenses all the time or carrying multiple body lens combinations is not worth it to me...If i am not mistaking the 3.5-6.3 is a little smaller and lighter than the one you are considering...as well as cheaper...

The one thing i would do is keep at least one of the lenses as a backup just in case something happens to your go to lens...You wont get much at all for the 18-55 so it might be wort keeping it...