Nikon 300MM lens: I have a Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR lens at present and now want a little more reach so am looking at buying a Nikon 300mm lens. I see that there are two options listed...

trapper1 Loc: Southside Virginia

I have a Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR lens at present and now want a little more reach so am looking at buying a Nikon 300mm lens. I see that there are two options listed in my price range, a 18-300 and a 28-300. Can anyone point out from personal use the similarities and/or differences of each as compared to the other? The price of one appears to be greater than the other but are close enough to each other for both to be in my price range of 400-600$. The lens will generally be used hand-held so VR is important. Any input will be appreciated.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

One is a DX lens, the other is a full-frame lens. That is part of the differences in size and weight and cost. Have you considered the Tamron 18-400?

trapper1 Loc: Southside Virginia

I tried a couple of 400s belonging to friends but could not get them stable enough at the long end when hand-held, still too much quiver. Around 300 steady but beyond that the motion became much more obvious. I do not want to be confined to shooting from a rest so I figure the 300 is my best compromise.

User ID

trapper1 wrote:

I have a Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR lens at present a... (show quote)

If you’re intending to shoot at 300mm you might want the 18-400. Depends on whether the long end limit of a high ratio zoom meets your IQ expectations. With the 400 zoom, 300 won’t be pushing the lens to its limit. One zoom is 17X the other is 22X. Both are extreme ratios.

I wouldn’t expect consistently first class results at the far end from either one of them. If you are seldom forced to use it wide open, you might be ok with results at the long end limit of an 18-300. Much depends on your own expectations. And much depends on how the subject and the light limit or force your settings.

Example: I distrust the far end of 28-200 FF zooms. Therefor I use a 28-300 to cover my 200mm uses. In good light with certain subjects the bonus is using it *beyond* 200mm ... but only in such favorable conditions.

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

trapper1 wrote:

I have a Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR lens at present a... (show quote)

Both lenses are heavy. The 18-300 is a DX lens and that one is the suggested lens for your DX camera.
Please put this lens on your camera before you decide to buy it, it is a lot heavier than your current 18-200.
You may really want to consider the 70-300, in my opinion this lens is sharper than the 18-300 and lighter.
Please consider it especially if your considering more reach.
At the web site below the first two lenses shown are Nikon, the first one is a FF and the second is a DX lens.
I prefer the FF lens, I believe it is the better of the two and you will then have a field of view of 105mm to 450mm.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon%2070-300&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

The Tamron 18-400 is a great lens.
It's also cheaper than the Nikon 18-300.
Highly recommend it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

trapper1 wrote:

I tried a couple of 400s belonging to friends but could not get them stable enough at the long end when hand-held, still too much quiver. Around 300 steady but beyond that the motion became much more obvious. I do not want to be confined to shooting from a rest so I figure the 300 is my best compromise.

Get the one to 400mm.
Do not use it at 400mm if unsteady but I will bet after a couple of times you will use 400mm.
Besides you might want 347mm to get that shot and you will have it.

ELNikkor

I'm not one for redundancy of focal lengths, extreme zooms, or heavy lenses. If you get a DX 70-300 VR AF-P, you'll save money, and get a 300mm VR that weighs less than a pound. How often do you need to go from 18-300 in an instant? (It only takes 5 seconds to change a lens.)

Bill_de Loc: US

I have a Nikkor 300 pf and a 100-400 Sigma. The 300 is easily hand holdable. I posted pictures I took a couple of days ago. The Sigma is a heavy lens and even at 300 I have trouble holding it steady. I had to buy a collar for it and now use it on a monopod. Using the heavier 400 at 300 doesn't necessarily make it lighter or easier to use.

----

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

trapper1 wrote:

I have a Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR lens at present a... (show quote)

Keep your 18-200 and add a 70-300 Nikkor or 100-400 Tamron. There are two versions of the current Nikkor 70-300 - one is DX and the other FX. The FX is a better investment if are a serious shooter.

.

Temuna

Every choice has trade offs and it is not possible to tell you what yours should be. I use the 18-300 and have been satisfied with it. The most frequent subject of my photography is candid shots of children playing and for that the flexibility of not having to change lenses is an advantage.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

Ken Rockwell has some very good tech reports on each lens, along with literally every other Nikon body & lens...www.kenrockwell.com. But as previously stated one lens is DX, the other is FX

User ID

ELNikkor wrote:

I'm not one for redundancy of focal lengths, extreme zooms, or heavy lenses. If you get a DX 70-300 VR AF-P, you'll save money, and get a 300mm VR that weighs less than a pound. How often do you need to go from 18-300 in an instant? (It only takes 5 seconds to change a lens.)

Only takes half a second to drop either of the two lenses involved in the swap.

Bill_de Loc: US

User ID wrote:

Only takes half a second to drop either of the two lenses involved in the swap.

And if the dog didn't stop to take a dump ...
... he would have caught the rabbit.

Every decision we make is a trade off.

---

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I use the FF 70-300 and love it. The FF has manual focus, the DX don't. If shooting wildlife in cover manual focus can't be beat.