TOM37

I've been a hobbyist for over 50 years. Currently I'm using a Nikon D90 with a Nikkor 18-105mm lens. Most of my photography is done while I'm hiking or sightseeing. I'm having excellent results, however I'm missing the more distant wildlife shots. My objective is to buy a good quality lens without adding too much weight. I'm considering purchasing the Nikkor 18-300mm lens. I'd appreciate any opinions on this lens or recommendations on other lenses.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I would seriously consider adding the Tamron or Sigma 100-400mm lens to the 18-105 you already have.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I agree, the Tamron is an excellent lens and well worth considering.

Here is a sample image at 400mm. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-516912-1.html

srherrmann Loc: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Have you considered the Nikon AF-S 80-400 mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR. I had one and had good results with it, then I sold it for the Nikon 200-500 mm f/5.6 E ED VR. The 80-400 is 3.5 lbs while the 200-500 is rather hefty at a little over 5 lbs. Both are teleconverter compatible.

TOM37

Since I will be carrying the camera while hiking, I'm trying to keep the lens weight down under 2 lbs. The 18-105 mm is 15 oz. and the 18-300 mm is 21 oz. Most of the other lenses mentioned would be adding too much weight.

JR45 Loc: Montgomery County, TX

I have been using the 18-300 on either a D7200 or D500 for the lat year, and have been very happy with it.

binsjohn

If you take a good look at image quality you will undoubtedly find that it will decrease as the zoom range increases. So, going with a "one lens for everything" approach will not give you as good results as simply adding a 70-300 or 100-400. Swapping lenses is less convenient, but that's the price of better IQ unless you regularly shoot in bad weather.

rbmartiniv Loc: Nacogdoches, TX

I have a D7000 with a Nikkor 18-300mm lens which I am very happy with. I use it for almost everything, my go to lens. If I could only carry one lens, that would be it.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It really boils down to your expectations for image quality and performance.

Ultra wide ranging zooms such as a 16X 18-300mm (300 divided by 18 = 16.6666) simply have to compromise in many ways.

Smaller range zooms such as 100-400 (4X) or 70-200 (3X) are typically able to offer higher image quality in a number of ways (less distortion, better control of chromatic aberration, etc.), as well as faster autofocus, larger apertures to be able to shoot in lower light conditions, etc.

In addition, 300mm is kind of short for wildlife photography... even on a crop sensor camera such as yours. 400mm is more like it. 500mm or 600mm even better... especially for small, shy subject... although it means a lot bigger and heavier lens. This is simply the "price we pay" to photograph wildlife!

However, maybe the reach, performance and results produced by the 18-300mm would be acceptable to you... only you can say. That kind of lens is designed to "do it all", though it has to compromise in some ways. It duplicates and would replace the lens you already have, rather than complementing it.

BrianFlaherty Loc: Wilseyville, CA

Just a suggestion: Though I've never weighed the total gear setup, I usually wear a pair of holsters. . .Two LowePro holsters (@ $20 each); and a tool belt from Home Depot (@ $4.95). . I carry two Nikon D7100's. . .one is fitted with a Sigma 18-37mm; the other with a Tamron 28-300mm. . .Everything I need for about 99% of what I might want to shoot is on my hips. . .The holsters also carry extra disks; lens brush; wiping cloth; teleconverter; etc etc. . .If you think this might be "too heavy" you can get a pair of suspenders from Home Depot for another $4.95. . .

All in all, a decent, inexpensive setup (about $50-$60). . .which has been quite comfortable and adequate in England; Scotland; South Africa; multiple cities in the US; and, my "home area" of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding foothills. . .And, it also fits under a poncho, in the event of a sudden weather "wetting" (as in the UK!)

PS. . .I am 78 years old. . .

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I've been using the 70-300 for years - it was what I used on various upgrading cameras when I was able to chase dragon flies "in the wild" fast focus and, as far as I am concerned good sharpness, albeit I'm only concern with the fly, not the surroundings. I did buy the upgraded version but have not as yet had chance to use it.

eating


depositing eggs

(Download)

mating

(Download)