Nikon Lense: I have a D3100 with just the 18-55mm kit lens and I have a 35mm 1.8 prime. I'm looking at a longer range lens, i.e. the AFS-DX 18-300 f3.5-5.6 ED VR. Hopefully to use for...

jcelmer Loc: Wisconsin

I have a D3100 with just the 18-55mm kit lens and I have a 35mm 1.8 prime. I'm looking at a longer range lens, i.e. the AFS-DX 18-300 f3.5-5.6 ED VR. Hopefully to use for wildlife, etc. It is about a $1K. Any experience out there?

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

The 28-300 is a superb lens the 18-300 is also nice but remember the better lenses need a better camera, NO disrespect I have a 3100, and it is a good camera.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm

I have the 28-300 on D7000s

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

Since you already have an 18-55, you might consider the Nikon 70-300 F4.5-5.6 VR it's sharp, also works on FX format and is under $600 at Adorama. I have one and like it a lot, used on both DX and FX body cameras.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

This would be an excellent choice for wildlife and under $500 used. Make sure to get the VR version.

Gobuster wrote:

Since you already have an 18-55, you might consider the Nikon 70-300 F4.5-5.6 VR it's sharp, also works on FX format and is under $600 at Adorama. I have one and like it a lot, used on both DX and FX body cameras.

jcelmer Loc: Wisconsin

I was thinking thisone lens would cover the entire gamut from 18 -300...without compromising the aperture, i.e.still f3.5-5.6 throughout a much longer range. I'd most likely sell the kit lens.
I will look inot the 70-300...any issue with light?
Not to confuse the issue, but I fully intend to get a 24-70 f2.8 for shooting my grandsons' sport activities.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

The aperture of the 18-300 is likely the same F4.5-5.6 over the 70-300 range and will only be 3.5 down low. Thus light will not be different between these two lenses in the range 70-300mm.

jcelmer Loc: Wisconsin

Thanks for stating that. I was a bit skeptical that the aperature might not be a pure mathematical transition. You are probably right that the 3.5 is only on the extreme end and not linear.

I'm relativley new to all this and this forum is proving to be a very valuable learning tool. Most (not all) people are eager to help.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

The Nikon rep was at B&H and recommended the 55-300mm lens.

altfox Loc: Central Pa.

I have the 70-300mm which I use on a D300s. It works fine and the shots are sharp and clean. I have had this lens since it came out and it has given me good performance.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

jcelmer wrote:

I have a D3100 with just the 18-55mm kit lens and I have a 35mm 1.8 prime. I'm looking at a longer range lens, i.e. the AFS-DX 18-300 f3.5-5.6 ED VR. Hopefully to use for wildlife, etc. It is about a $1K. Any experience out there?

I had the 55-300 for several years, good lens and was happy with it. I recently sold it along with a camera and replaced it with the 70-300, a world of difference. Much sharper images and much improved focusing. Here is a shot taken in the evening, plane is flying at approx. 80mph

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

First, go with the 70-300; much better lens and better for future growth. Next, a lens that reaches out to 70mm only isn't going to be very good for sports photography unless you can be very close to the action. If you have the money get the 70-200 2.8, an outstanding lens. I have a 55-300 and very good lens for the money. Note I said for the money.