Kuzano

Simply not a long enough stretch to spend the money. The first thing I would do, If I were in your predicament is put a 300 on your camera to see just how much more reach you get. Admittedly, I am not a long lens person now, but the difference from 200 to 300mm is just NOT enough extra reach to spend any amount on. If a 200 doesn't do it for you, then I submit that a 300mm lens will simply be a disappointment for the money spent. Furthermore, if the reviews and subsequent reports from users are inconsistent, there is risk involved in value received.

If you are set on one lens, pick a time when you can wring out your newly considered lens and rent it for a month. My choice was to revert to "sneaker" zoom, which worked well for me and still does. Only time that is not a solution is standing on the lip of the Grand Canyon. But, who is going to use a long lens from the edge of the Grand Canyon. That's wide angle territory.

My longest lens now, and for some time has been about 80mm and that's just fine for me.

After all that, here is what Ken Rockwell says about one of your considerations, the Nikon:

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300mm-vr-afp.htm

I do my research when shopping, but I never make a purchase without at least checking with Ken R.

FredCM Loc: Central Illinois

There are some who think sharpness is over rated, including me. But then I do it for fun, not to put food on the table. I have the Sigma 18-300 and haven't been disappointed with sharpness. Maybe pixie peepers would crab, I don't know, don't care. I chose the Sigma because of the company's reputation and more importantly, it's lighter than the comparable Nikon. Carrying my Nikon 70-300 around Africa would get tiresome, the Sigma didn't bother me.

PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa

I agreee that the Tamron 18-400 is a great choice. Make sure it will autofocus on your d5300, I think it will. I saw it on the Adorama site for 599.00.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Agree- it's a super lens!

wbmcmillan46

I like my 16-300mm Tamron super zoom lens.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

My go to lens for 300mm is a Nikon DX 50 to 300mm for my D7200. When shooting sports professionally I carry it on one Nikon and on the other D7200 I carry a 100 to 400mm Sigma with a 18 to 150mm Nikon in a vest pocket (just in case I need something a little wider). I had a Sigma 70 to 300mm but it started to hang up during auto focus after 2 years of continoude use.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I can sit on the center yard line of at least soccer with my 100 to 400mm Sigma and never have to move from there to cover the sport. A little heavy but worth it to me.

srt101fan

Thank you all for your inputs. Very helpful and very much appreciated.

I'm still interested in the Sigma 18-300; some of you seem to be very happy with it. It just seems like such an attractive package of zoom range, close focusing, and sale price....

Also still considering the Nikon 70-300, either FX or DX. Some of you have praised the FX version but I'm concerned about the higher cost and weight of FX over DX. Ken Rockwell really likes the DX (thanks for the link Kuzano!). As ELNikkor said, the DX version is currently on sale at Walmart for $155! I could really go for that but I have to assume there's something not right there. Adorama had a refurbished for $200, how can Walmart sell a new one for $155?? And last I checked they only had one left....

And I haven't forgotten the other candidate lenses some of you have mentioned (Tamron and other Nikons). Much info to digest but it's getting a lot easier with your inputs.

Thanks again!

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

i really like my Nikon 18-300 dx lens. a little more money than your budgeted 500. it is a great travel lens...it is light weight...i believe i will be selling my 18-55 and 55-300 kit lenses as well as my 18-140...keeping my 50mm though..

AndyGarcia

The Sigma 18-300 would be great.
The Tamron 18-400 would be great too.

I have an old Sigma 18-250mm which can produce v good images on my D300/7K. The modern version will be much better.

You can sell your existing lenses and maybe get a 10-20mm if you need one.

Good luck. Enjoy.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It's also $100 to $150 more than the original poster wanted to spend.

Both the following can be found for under $400.

Ken Rockwell has no problem with the image quality of either the Nikkor AF-P 70-300mm DX VR or the AF-S 55-300mm DX VR.

He does note that the AF-S lens is slower focusing, but it comes with the matched lens hood.

OTOH, he also notes that the AF-P lens has a plastic bayonet mount... and it's matched lens hood isn't included, sells separately for $29.

Rockwell says he doesn't use hoods.... Personally I think that's just plain lazy and pretty dumb. Hoods not only have the potential to improve image quality, they also serve to protect the lens from bumps (far better than the thin piece of glass in a "protective" filter ever could).

With respect to the AF-P lens, you should also note that the information Rockwell mentions about manual override of autofocus IS NOT possible on D5300 (see the Nikon compatibility chart mentioned above).

If you opt for the AF-P 70-300mm, be sure to get the VR (stabilized) version. There's a slightly ($50) cheaper non-VR version of that lens, too. Especially with a lens reaching 300mm, using it handheld and on a DX camera, image stabilization is very helpful and worth the rather minimal extra expense.

Ritch1

I use the Sigma 18-300 lens. I like it so much it is now my leave on the camera and go everywhere lens. Really crisp. Fast. Not bad weight and I have plenty to work with when I need to PP. All my other lenses are now for specific shots.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I wish I had another. I can't pry ours off my wife's camera. She loves it.

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Get the old Nikon 18-300 which is f/6.3 on the long end new for $700 and sell the 18-55 and 55-200. Or get the newer, slightly faster Nikon 18-300 which is f/5.6 on the long end, but, that is $1,000; or try to find one of them used at Roberts, B&H or KEH.

The Tamron 18-400 is an interesting possibility. The reviews I've read say it'e fine up to 200, decent at 300 and merely OK at 400. Read reviews of all 3 and see what you think. The Tamron is $650 new.
.

Pegasus Loc: Texas Gulf Coast

It's actually the other way around. The old DX 18-300 is f/5.6 at the long end. It's around $1000. The newer DX 18-300 is f/6.3 at the long end, but it's lighter (more plastic) and cheaper than the old lens. I have the older model and it is heavy.