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

The 18-300 will give you the reach but the speed and results might be underwhelming. A much better recommendation for you would be the 200-500 f5.6 Nikon, which, was made for wildlife photography and would only cost a couple hundred dollars more and I am sure you would be much happier. Your angle of view would go from 450 mm to 750 mm.

JeffinMass Loc: MA

Tokina ATX lenses are some of the best in the business. They are not as "popular" as Tamron or Sigma although their metal bodies make them as indestructible as possible. The glass is also exceptional.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

For wildlife the Tamron 18-400, night sky rokinon 24 mm f/1.4

Nikon1201

I have a 18-200 Nikor and love it .

ATCurry

I use that Tokina lens for night photography, mainly Milky Way shots. There are a lot of articles out there that talk about great night photography lenses, and usually this one appears on the list. Tokina also makes a newer 11-20 2.8 that you might check into as well, although I have no experience with it..

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I used a 18-300 for several years on a D7200, pretty sharp in good light and pretty heavy. I now use the AS-P 70-300 FF it's long but light, or a Tamron 150-600 G2 for wildlife. I prefer FF lens as most of the photos are cropped. The 18-200 VR11 DX is a great walk around lens. Good luck.

davidb1879

If you want the Nikkor af-p 70-300 you can purchase the grey market version new for about $150. David b1879

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If I understand correctly... you have a Nikon 18-180mm lens? Never heard of that. AFAIK, they make an 18-55mm, an 18-140mm, an 18-200mm and an 18-300mm. Do you actually have an 18-140mm? That or the 18-55mm would be what I'd expect to see sold "in kit" with a D7200.

The Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 II would be fine with your camera. The 11-16mm was for a long time the only f/2.8 lens among the ultrawides... except it's an older, discontinued lens and there's a better Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 available for just a little more money. There are two problems with the 11-16mm: It has a very narrow range of focal lengths and it's extremely susceptible to flare. For a few dollars more, the 11-20mm does a lot to solve both these problem. Either lens would complement the "general purpose, walk-around" lens you've got now.

For more telephoto "reach", instead of an 18-300mm that duplicates a lot of the focal lengths you've already got (probably), I'd recommend a lens like the Tamron or Sigma 100-400mm. Both these are just a little more money than the Nikkor 18-300mm, but they give you greater telephoto reach and don't overlap what you've already got. Super wide ranging zooms like the 18-300mm (a greater than 15X zoom) ALWAYS have to compromise in some ways. A more modest 4X range like 70-200 (3X) or 100-400 (4X) or 150-600mm (4X) that doesn't try to "do it all" will usually do what it does much better in a number of ways. Between the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm, I'd choose the latter. It's designed to be able to use a separately sold tripod ring, which is very helpful on a long focal length like 400mm. The Sigma cannot be fitted with a tripod ring.

Sure, the Nikon 200-500mm or Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm might be great, too... but they are all much bigger and more expensive than the 100-400s (both of which are close to the price of the 18-300mm).

Pegasus Loc: Texas Gulf Coast

For my D7500, I have the 18-140 as well as the 18-300 f/3.5-5.6G. I prefer to walk around with the 18-140. I only use the 18-300 when I know that I will need the reach. I find that the focus is a little soft past 200mm. It could very well be me because that is a heavy lens (heavier that the 18-300 f/3.5-6.3G) but I do use a monopod and on occasion, a tripod. I am considering buying an AF-P 70-300 which I understand is sharper than the 18-300 at the high end. Or I may get the 200-500 f/5.6 for the additional reach.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Zoom lenses with an optical zoom ratio higher than 3 invariably suffer from significant quality problems somewhere along the range of focal lengths. "Professional" quality zooms never go above this number.
That is why a 70-200 mm lens (zoom ratio under 3) will typically yield much sharper results than a
20-400 mm lens (zoom ratio 20).

If convenience is more important than sharpness, then obviously the zoom with the greater zoom ratio wins.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

I own the Nikon 18 to 140 mm. It is okay up to f 11, but at f 16 or 22 it is horrible.

dsnoke Loc: North Georgia, USA

IMHO, one key for getting good pictures of a night sky is a fast lens, f/2.8 or wider. It is not that you can't do it with slower lenses, but the faster lens lets you use a faster shutter speed and/or a lower ISO. Both those get you sharper pictures. Once you exceed about 25-30 seconds of exposure, you will start to see star trails. So if that is your wish, use the slower lens. In addition, I prefer to use a wide or ultra-wide lens so I can include both the sky and some foreground for context. So my lens of choice is a Tokina f/2.8 11-16 mm lens on my Nikon D7100. I can often get good results at 20 seconds with the lens wide open at ISO 3200.

I also use that lens some for landscapes, and occasionally, for flower closeups. I keep it in my bag all the time.

Cheers,
Dick

dino21 Loc: McAllen, TX

[You are so right amfoto1. It is a 18-140 lense that I have. I am so sorry.]If I understand correctly... you have a Nikon 18-180mm lens? Never heard of that. AFAIK, they make an 18-55mm, an 18-140mm, an 18-200mm and an 18-300mm. Do you actually have an 18-140mm? That or the 18-55mm would be what I'd expect to see sold "in kit" with a D7200.

The Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 II would be fine with your camera. The 11-16mm was for a long time the only f/2.8 lens among the ultrawides... except it's an older, discontinued lens and there's a better Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 available for just a little more money. There are two problems with the 11-16mm: It has a very narrow range of focal lengths and it's extremely susceptible to flare. For a few dollars more, the 11-20mm does a lot to solve both these problem. Either lens would complement the "general purpose, walk-around" lens you've got now.

For more telephoto "reach", instead of an 18-300mm that duplicates a lot of the focal lengths you've already got (probably), I'd recommend a lens like the Tamron or Sigma 100-400mm. Both these are just a little more money than the Nikkor 18-300mm, but they give you greater telephoto reach and don't overlap what you've already got. Super wide ranging zooms like the 18-300mm (a greater than 15X zoom) ALWAYS have to compromise in some ways. A more modest 4X range like 70-200 (3X) or 100-400 (4X) or 150-600mm (4X) that doesn't try to "do it all" will usually do what it does much better in a number of ways. Between the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm, I'd choose the latter. It's designed to be able to use a separately sold tripod ring, which is very helpful on a long focal length like 400mm. The Sigma cannot be fitted with a tripod ring.

Sure, the Nikon 200-500mm or Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm might be great, too... but they are all much bigger and more expensive than the 100-400s (both of which are close to the price of the 18-300mm).[/quote]

rcarol

I have the Tokina 11-16mm and it is an excellent lens. I have no regrets.

Diocletian

One lens
Two lenses

Or, if it is a small, light, little-bitty lens, then lensie