Nikon 18-300mm as superzoom

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>I have Nikon D90 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, I am mainly in to Landscape, Currently Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is the only lens in my kit and I was planning to replace it with Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 due to limited zoom. I have done some R&D and settling down to following options </p>

 

<ul>

<li>Will not sell Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.</li>

<li>Will be looking for additional lens which can give me more flexibility to cover other range.</li>

</ul>

<p>I have gone through different options and sorted out following 2 lens </p>

 

 

<ul >

<li> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JKUPRF4/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER"> Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G</a></li>

<li> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002JCSV8A/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER"> Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Both lens have got a good reviews and feedback but only issue which I have came to know about 18-300 is wight.Can some one help me to understand how practical it is for me to go for 18-300 provided I mainly shoot for landscape. I am also open to any other suggestion.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Umesh</p>

 

Yes, keep the Tokina. I recommend two additional lenses: One 18- 200 or longer zoom, and the

35mm/1.8 prime. There is simply no substitute for a fast prime, and the 35/1.8 is very good and also

inexpensive. Either of the superzooms is ok. If I had to make a choice, I would buy the less expensive

zoom and spend the difference on the 35mm.

A telephoto as long as 300 mm on DX has very little

use for landscapes, unless you're into 2

dimensional looking distant mountain ranges.

 

Personally I'd steer clear of superzooms and go for

a more restricted zoom range with better image

quality and less geometrical distortion.

 

I have the 18-140mm "kit" zoom that came with the D7200 and can't praise it enough for its IQ. The zoom range is more than wide enough for most landscape work.

 

I also have the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 lens. It's an excellent lens, but I'm not sure it'll make much of an addition to your existing 11-16 zoom. If you buy an 18 to something zoom you'll only have a barely discernible gap between 16 and 18 mm. And that's nothing to lose any sleep over.

<p>I am not sure how many landscape shots you would take on he long end of either of those lenses. IQ at the long end of a superzoom is typically good but not great anyway and if you are concerned about getting the best image quality and don't mind changing lenses, consider getting two lenses:</p>

<p>A couples of possibly better choices for the wide end:<br>

24-85mm<br>

16-85mm (probably your best choice)<br>

A lens I have and like the focal length of is the 18-105mm. IQ is reasonably good throughout the zoom range.</p>

<p>and if you want longer reach, add a 70-300mm VR.</p>

<p>But if you typically don't make large prints, don't pixel peep and are looking for a one lens solution, either of the two you mention will work well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd keep the Tokina you have, and add a 16-85 VR. The one I had was absolutely great for landscapes, and with the newer 16-80 out, the price of the 16-85VR dropped to far more acceptable levels. The 18-105 and 18-140 mentioned would be the alternatives indeed, all of these lenses deliver better quality for the money than the superzooms (where you trade quality for convenience).</p>

<p>I'd also say the 18-140 makes more sense if you want to cover that range with one lens (and don't want to look at, say, the 18-35, 50-100mm f/1.8 pair - which are optically very good, but expensive, heavy, and you probably don't need the aperture). I'd second the suggestion that you might want to shorten the long end for landscape reasons (though I certainly <i>have</i> used longer when isolating landscape elements) - so if you went 16-85 and left yourself the option of a 70-200 f/4 or (more reach but less quality) 70-300 in the future, I don't think I'd argue against you.<br />

<br />

While the D90 is relatively undemanding as a body in terms of pixel density, I'd still steer clear of the 18-200 - those who liked it typically liked it on a 6MP body, and every recent commentary I've heard is that a cheap 11x zoom is not something that is easy to make with good optical quality, and pretty much nobody has succeeded (although I'm sure you'll get some quality back with the right post-processing). I consider the 18-200 to be for people who should have bought a compact - I'd expect you to do about as well by using the 18-140 and cropping the result. Don't expect miracles from even the 18-140, though. The 18-200 won't be <i>awful</i> on a D90, but it won't be the best you can do optically, and it'll rapidly turn disappointing should you replace your D90 with something with more pixels in the future. If you're not sure you need the 200mm end (and for landscapes I think that's a valid question) I'd suggest that it's compromised by adding functionality that you don't need.<br />

<br />

The 18-300 is more expensive, heavier, and even more compromised as something to carry around in the field (the 18-200 is at least relatively small). Thom Hogan points out that the front element is a bit exposed, too. Is it optically better than the 18-200? Maybe sometimes, but it's still a cheapish lens trying to do an awful lot. Mostly you're paying to be able to take landscapes and then suddenly spot a bird in the distance that you want to shoot, but don't have time to change lenses for. It'll probably take a blurry photo of it, but that might be something you'd otherwise miss. Purely for landscapes, I really wouldn't bother.<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: I've only played with the 18-200, though I've seen a fair number of images from it, and some from the 18-300 - I don't own either. But I think both are trading optical quality for range, and it really doesn't sound like the range is something you're urgently after. If you need reach, the 70-200 or 70-300 (or 300 f/4) will get you there with a lot more quality, and they're not huge lenses - so I'd concentrate on filling in your mid-to-moderately telephoto range decently first, and only then look longer. There's a reason the pro journalist lenses are the 14-24/24-70/70-200/200-400 set (and at most the 24-120 street sweeper) rather than a convenience zoom covering the whole range, and it's not just a question of aperture. If it was, the 50-500mm Sigma would have sold better!</p>

<p>With the super zooms, if you are printing small or sharing on the internet, you will be okay.<br /><br />If you are using the long end, anything above 5 x 7 will show the problems with those lenses.<br>

Here's what I'd do and what I did, in fact, do when I shot a D90. Keep the 11-16 (GREAT lens).<br /><br />Get a used 18-70. It's as good as the 18-200 in the range they share. EXACTLY as good as I tested it.<br /><br />Get a used 70-300VR. It's a FANTASTIC lens on that camera.</p>

<p>On DX, 300mm and even 200mm are not that useful for landscape photography. Instead of a superzoom, I too would opt for something that only goes out to 70, 85, or 105mm.</p>

<p>On further consideration, if Umesh is only doing landscapes, I agree with the comments directing him to a shorter focal length. I find my 18-105 kit lens is a very handy zoom range, if not the very best IQ. If Umesh also likes to shoot other subjects, particularly the wildlife that frequently accompanies landscapes, then the longer focal lengths will be useful. I still believe one fast prime is also an essential piece of kit.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for providing input, Recently I lost my kit lens and that was one of the reason for me to start looking for the replacement.<br>

It seems that I should focus on mid range rather than going for super zoom option, additionally I am not planning to upgrade my D90 for next 1-2 years.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Umesh</p>

<p>Thanks for getting back to us, Umesh. Sorry you lost your kit lens. Honestly the kit lenses aren't that bad for the money (although the D90 doesn't support the latest AF-P versions, I believe), but I understand that in the circumstances you might want to find an upgrade. best of luck!</p>

<p>Concerning the D90, one thing to keep in mind is that it is among the "older" Nikon bodies that cannot control the aperture diaphragm on the latest E lenses, such as the 16-80mm/f2.8-4 E DX AF-S VR lens: http://www.photo.net/equipment/Nikon-D500-and-16-80mm-DX-Lens-Review<br>

But there are still a lot of choices among good mid-range DX lenses, Nikkor or third party. For landscape photography, you don't need an f2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>Read more on E lenses: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dSpx</p>

<p>Huh. I was paranoid about "E" for the kit lenses (which also don't work, but because they're AF-P, not because they're "E" - at least in name; I've not checked the back of one for an aperture lever), but it passed me by that the 16-80 was E. Turn your back for five minutes and a load of new technology suddenly becomes ubiquitous. My F5 is beginning to look less clever as a back-up - not that it was all that relevant for a DX lens anyway.</p>