rothphotog Loc: Orlando, FL

I've used that same lens for over two years as my every day, walk-around and candid head-shot/portrait lens. Exceptional range with great image quality. Be careful, if you absolutely HAVE to use an in-camera flash, that you are aware of the lens hood when extended for long focal lengths. The hood will cast a semi-circular shadow in the bottom third of the frame that you won't see in the viewfinder. Easy to forget in the heat of a quick shooting moment. I confess to having first-hand knowledge!

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Took the 18-300 on my last vacation, Greece, Crete, Southwest England. Left behind three, fast, heavy lenses. It was great. It did most of what I wanted. The one thing I missed was the shallow DOF. 5.6 just doesn't s throw those backgrounds out of focus the way 2.8 lens does. I would supplement it with my 12-24, or my fisheye, but I kept my kit light everyday. I had no sharpness issues even at 300mm and I did lots of testing of exactly this before I left.
..Cam

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

what issues have you had with the lens at 300 mm? Would you be kind enough to post an example. I use one on a d500 and have not found any issues

Grace98 Loc: Waterlooville, Hampshire - United Kingdom

I have this lens and it never leaves my camera. However, it does depend where you go and what you want to photograph. I did struggle a few months ago when shooting wildlife and birds high in canopies. Luckily I kept my ISO at 100 and used cropping. I was on a boat trip trying to shoot birds but there were too far. I wished I had a 500. IF you PM me I can send you my Flickr Link to have a look at the photos taken with this camera. Grace

lrm Loc: Sarasota, FL

Rob, was the 18-300 the older or newer version (ie the 3.5-5.6 or the 3.5-6.3).

Robeng Loc: California

It's the newer f/3.5-5.6 version. I really like this lens on my D500!

Rob

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Years ago I embarked on my digital journey with a Nikon D50 and a Sigma 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 DS lens. Then about 5 years ago I moved up to a D7100 and the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. I shot with that lens a short while before I came to the realization that the Sigma was sharper - much, much sharper. I later screened shots from that period which, at times, I could crop up to almost 200% and the images still be sharp. Not true with the Nikon 3.5-5.6. It always bothered me that at full extension it was soft, no matter what fine tuning I did. Otherwise it was a fine lens in full daylight at f/5.6 to maybe f/11 up to 150mm. So you might do yourself a favor by checking out the Sigma and cropping a bit if you have to.
Mine is not the only opinion about this - tons of reviews out there, maybe even on UHH.
By the way, I picked up an AF-S 70-200mm 2.8G ED VRII (with plans to go FF). With an AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E-II it's all I would ever want or need. A little pricy and a bit heavy but if I'm gonna take a picture I really want to be proud of it.
Hope this helps and sorry to be so long-winded.

christinortham

Love mine. Most of my work is done with my 18-300.
https://www.facebook.com/Christi-Northam-Photography-865889143591157/

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

No, you are not crazy to consider that Nikon lens -- just that there is another one that is possably better being you have the means of buying this new Tamron lens.

jimpitt

There are two Nikkor 18-300 lenses. Get the faster one for the extra $'s - slightly heavier but worth it. I have had both. On your D500 (same as me), which is heavy anyway, the diff will not be noticeable. On vacation it is convenient to not carry more than one lens and this is my fav for DX format. For FX I opted for two lenses: 16-35 and 28-300. Better pics, but the question is what do you want for vac photos. Summary: For vac carrying only one lens, it's the best Nikkor choice in my opinion.

rts2568

Very close to superb.
Just remember that at the 300mm end the angle of view is very narrow and subject to camera shake in the extreme.

Ron

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

sir, is it the $700-3.5/6.3 version or the $1,000-3.5/5.6 ? i too am considering that lens but my budget is for the first (3.5/6.3). thank you.

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

I think he's recommending the $1000 one.

jimpitt

Yes, for the extra $300.00 it is worth it in my experience having used both. The slower lens is lighter weight, but not enough advantage for the benefits of the faster. 5.6.
Frankly, as DX zooms are concerned, you can't do any better in my opinion.
I am currently using two zoom FX lenses on my D 500, so maybe I am not thinking clearly.