rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm looking into acquiring a 18-300 DX lens for my D500 and D7200 and have read up on both lenses but that doesn't really tell me what I want to know. The specs for the 3.5-5.6 are better than the 3.5-6.3 but what I want to know, from user experience, if the larger lens really $300 better than the smaller model or will the smaller one deliver almost as good results as the more expensive model.

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

If you have a minute, look at my post yesterday on "Junction, Utah......." as all those photos were taken with the 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 on a Nikon D7200. It is a very good lens/camera combo. So no, I do not think the heavier f/3.5-5.6 is worth the $300. difference.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

See this site:

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

Ken reviews both lenses. Summary he offers is newer lens (6.3) is newer, lighter, better and cheaper.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

How about a link to that page?

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

I can tell you that the 5.6 is MUCH heavier in weight as well as price. Go for the other.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I think the answer to your question depends on what you want from a lens. The difference lies in the technology incorporated into its build, which in turn will improve the quality of your images. The more expensive lens has more lens elements, more diaphragm blades, and a larger lens surface area. We do not see the internal parts, but they work to improve the lens function. The lens surface area helps determine the light-gathering ability, so larger is better. All of this is what makes this lens heavier than the less expensive one, but if you think about it, 10 ounces is not really a lot of weight.

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

Silly Morrison, good results come from the photographer, not the lens. Either lens in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing will return good results. I was at a golf outing once and an old pro asked the crowd if anyone had an old wood head driver, one old timer said yes and went out to his car and returned with an old wood head driver with a starting to rust shaft, the pro proceeded to get some beautiful drives well over 200 yards with this old relic. Good knowledge and skill result in superior results.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I use the heavy lens on my D7100, is it better I don't know. You get many opinions here, to get one that counts op would test both lens, the results would be based on fact not a opinion.

Jacqui Burke Loc: Perkiomenville, PA

I have the 18-200 and bought the newer 18-300 for a longer reach. I quickly returned it because the image quality was atrocious.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Ken Rockwell (internet camera and lens reviewer) owned the 5.6 version of this lens and loved it. Sold an image from it to McDonalds that they use on billboards.

I bought the 6.3 newer version and haven't taken it off the camera since the day I bought it; my 2.8 24-70 that I paid two grand for is resting peacefully, hoping for another turn.

olddog Loc: louisville ky

Morrison, I can only comment on the 3.5/6.3 18/300. I bought mine from Nikon as a referb. Last year, I shot a church interior and when zooming in on my computer I could tell the pews were put together with Phillips head screws. As I said, I have no experience with the other version but I am very happy with mine. I think you will be too. In order to be absolutely sure, you could rent both and compare test shots. Good luck and good shooting.

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

RMorrison - It depends on what you plan to shoot and which camera you plan to shoot it with. If you plan to shoot outdoors in decent light conditions, then the f/6.3 is probably OK for both cameras. However, if you plan to shoot indoors - say, at concerts or other performances where flash is not possible, especially if you use the D7200 - go with the f/5.6. The extra stop will mean a lot in low light situations, meaning you will have less noise to deal with if you have to crop or produce large images. OTOH the D500 should be OK in low light situations as its sensor has greater tolerance at high ISO levels than the D7200, so the f/6.3 should work with that. Yes, the lens is heavy, and at 300mm it protrudes A LOT from the body. Others posting on this thread have good points about the weight and the cost; however, speed and light-gathering features always seem to be needed most when you don't have them. Just sayin' . . .

Below are two images taken with the f/3.5-5.6 at different zooms. The stage was not highly lit. Taken using a D5100, Manual mode, Auto ISO: min/max 100/3200.

f/5.6 @ 1/80s, ISO 3200, 44mm zoom


f/5.6 1/80s ISO 3200 300mm

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Your golf club example is both interesting and irrelevant. The old club is just as capable of doing what a newer club can do, hit the ball and send it on it's way. Most of the differences in the old and new clubs are for marketing purposes, not because one is better at hitting a ball than the other.

Both lenses are capable of good results. If they weren't, Nikon probably wouldn't be selling them. The question is, is the larger one $300 better than the smaller one. The main reason I asked the question is, the two Nikon dealers nearest to me both carry the smaller one but neither have the larger one in stock, although they both could have it for me in a day or 2. I could also simply purchase one from one of the big retailers in New York, but for items like this I try to purchase from a local store. It helps to keep local stores in existence.

If on a scale of 1 to 10, the larger lens is a 9.4 and the smaller lens is a 9.3, as the lens application is general photography, it may make less sense to spend the extra $300. On the other hand, if the larger, heavier lens is appreciably cleaner, sharper and produces better bokeh, then it's well worth the extra $300; and no matter how knowledgeable the person using it is, the inferior one will never be capable of producing a better image than the superior one; nothing silly about it...

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

Second time around on this. The more I think about it, the better the f/6.3 sounds, as others have said. If you use the D500 for low light situations (instead of the D7200), then you'll be fine.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I always read Ken Rockwell's reviews and for the most part, respect his judgment. I've made several purchases in the past based partly on his review and so far I've not been dissatisfied. I just wanted to get a larger spectrum of responses from folks who have used either or both lenses. I've sunk a whole lot of money into my Canon gear and although many people view this as an investment, I do not, as I will probably never sell anything for more than I purchased it for. I currently have the top two APS-C bodies Nikon markets and I just want to make sure my lens choices are wise choices, best bang for the buck. From my reading, the 6.3 is a good lens, but is the 5.6 really that much better!? If the consensus is yes, then that's the one I get.