Another nikon 18-300mm announced

47539764.jpg
 
What's the joke? When I had a DSLR, I liked using my 18-200. The 18-300 was too heavy for the limited use I had for the 200-300mm range. If they've managed to take 30% of the weight off without degrading IQ, that's a pretty remarkable achievement.
 
The joke is...

18-300mm announced.
18-140mm announced.
18-300mm (2) announced.

I just think Nikon are the least innovative technology company at the moment and all just seem to be fixing errors that shouldn't have been that way in the first place (D600 oil spots, 18-300mm heft) whilst canon are bringing out new features.
 
Also - don't get me wrong, I loved my 18-200mm and think it's a fantastic lens...but how about a 300mm f2.8 lens for DX? Or meeting sigma in the UWA scene at 8mm?

They have an 18-200mm and a 18-300mm (albeit heavy). Another 18-300mm isn't NEEDED.
 
Phil Young said:
but how about a 300mm f2.8 lens for DX?
Click to expand...

I can't see any manufacturer producing a dx 300mm f2.8, it would be pretty expensive going by nikons new prices (80-400 £1900?) and many who buy them are either fx users or maybe planning it as a future move. Is there really the need for one when older second hand models go for less than nikon would probably charge for a dx 300mm f2.8version?

I agree that some of their choices regarding upgrades seem strange. I would love to see a 120-300 f2.8 zoom or a 100-300 f4 like sigmas but I can't see it happening.
 
rob-nikon said:
I can't see any manufacturer producing a dx 300mm f2.8, it would be pretty expensive going by nikons new prices (80-400 £1900?) and many who buy them are either fx users or maybe planning it as a future move. Is there really the need for one when older second hand models go for less than nikon would probably charge for a dx 300mm f2.8version?

I agree that some of their choices regarding upgrades seem strange. I would love to see a 120-300 f2.8 zoom or a 100-300 f4 like sigmas but I can't see it happening.
Click to expand...
Remember the 80-400 is an FX lens, as are the current 300mm's.

Anyway, point is, the DX system looks like it's there for those that can afford FX - that's completely understandable but then supply some decent affordable lens options too in order to make the system complete otherwise it's still a cheap body that needs FX lenses (since there aren't enough specific dedicated DX lenses).
 
Phil Young said:
Remember the 80-400 is an FX lens, as are the current 300mm's.

Anyway, point is, the DX system looks like it's there for those that can afford FX - that's completely understandable but then supply some decent affordable lens options too in order to make the system complete otherwise it's still a cheap body that needs FX lenses (since there aren't enough specific dedicated DX lenses).
Click to expand...
That's understandable to want some top quality lenses for the cheaper dx system (I use crop and want them too) but manufacturers are always going to market their products so you trade upwards towards the more expensive models/lenses. I can't see nikon producing lenses like the 17-55 f2.8 dx again, I think some of it depends on whether we will ever see a replacement for the d300 (pro build body), with the way the camera lineup is arranged now I can't see it happening.
 
Llamaman said:
What's the joke? When I had a DSLR, I liked using my 18-200. The 18-300 was too heavy for the limited use I had for the 200-300mm range. If they've managed to take 30% of the weight off without degrading IQ, that's a pretty remarkable achievement.
Click to expand...

I think many Nikon users are aggrieved because there are plenty of things Nikon should be doing rather than building yet another 18-Infinity lens. While every lens is a compromise somewhere due to the laws of physics, these superzoom lenses are highly compromised due to the same laws so to keep refreshing them in some vain hope that you can break these laws seems a bit pointless.

It remains to be seen whether the image quality is worse- they've had to make the lens slower for a start to achieve the weight loss so now Nikon builds it's first f6.3 lens- great progress. The press release is fantastic though- 'sharp images throughout the range'- that does depend on the definition of 'sharp'.

Still, maybe they will get round to producing some useful lenses this century like a 300mm f4 VR, 50-150mm f2.8 DX, some wide DX primes eg a 12mm or 14mm or a refresh on the 135mm f2.

I'm sure it will sell well, especially as Nikon wants to charge a premium these days just for being Nikon:p. I can see the Dxxxx users queuing up for an 18-300 lens that costs £800-900:D.
 
I can't see what the fuss is about as nobody is forcing anyone to buy the lens. I'm not a "zoom" person at all and only own primes, but I can see some people like a zoom with a massive zoom range.
 
As a chap said on DPReview;
So far we've had:
18-55
18-55 with vr
18-55 collapsible edition
18-70
18-105
18-135
18-140
18-200 first edition
18-200 second edition
18-300 first edition

And now nikon gives us the new 18-300! Wow! Lighter! Slower! How can we have lived until today without yet another slow 18-whatever zoom?
Click to expand...

Rather than another 18mm to whatever lens, try something different, at least Tamron has tried something a bit different in an 16-300mm. Almost the same size and weight, but not 18-something. There is a big difference between 16mm and 18mm. I know Nikon know that you can go below 18mm with a DX lens because they have the 16-85mm lens which is a great lens.

Nikon are very poor at innovation at the moment. It may come back and bite them on the bottom. In tough times you need to do something to stand out and encourage people to spend. I can't see this new lens doing that. :thinking: :rolleyes:
 
I think they are aiming at the type of customer who would normally buy the 18-200 for general photography but who would like a bit of extra length without the extra weight. The type of person who is into ultra wide on crop would probably get the 12-24 anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top