Nikon Superzooms

James Blonde

James Blonde

Messages
405
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after some advice or comment on Nikon superzooms, specifically the 18-300, 28-300 and possibly the 18-200. I'd also be interested in other suggestions! I'm considering replacing my 18-105 and 70-300 VRII with a single lens.

I'm also looking to upgrade (but keep and convert to IR) my D90 with either (most likely) a D7100 or (outside bet) a D600.

I tried out on a D7100 with an 18-300 and an 28-300, and I'm aware of the weight of the lenses - wow, they're heavy! However I couldn't really get a feel for it in terms of speed or quality.

Question 1 is - what would I lose by going to one of these single lens solutions from the 2 I'm looking to replace?

Question 2 - how does the 18-300 compare with the 28-300? Obviously if I go full frame I only have one option...! However, given that the 28-300 was cheaper than the 18-300 and slightly lighter, it may in fact be a consideration for DX as well!

Question 3 - is it actually worth replacing my 18-105 and 70-300 with either of these lenses? I'd love to offset the price of a new lens by selling these 2, BUT I might also end up keeping the 18-105 on my D90.

Question 4 - if I were to go full frame, is the 28-300 any good?? Or again, would I be as well to keep the 70-300 and invest in an 18-105 replacement?

I generally shoot landscapes, but my biggest problem to date has been that I rarely change lenses (18-105 sits on my camera most of the time), despite carting a rucksack filled with gear all over the countryside with me! So this might save me some weight believe it or not!

Also got Sigma 10-20 (which may have to go if I went full frame) and the 50mm F1.8.

I really would appreciate some advice!
 
While I am not a big fan of huge zoom ranges I do know that Andy Rouse rates the 28-300 on FF.... I think your decision will be driven by which body you buy in the end.
 
Thanks Peter! I'm struggling to justify a D600 (I've not yet seen a strong enough argument to go FF - yet... and therein lies the doubt...!), the specs on the D7100 just look fantastic, and I've still got to afford my IR conversion on the D90, so I reckon I'll end up going for the D7100. It would also allow me to keep my current lenses and upgrade over time, rather than write 2 of them off instantly! But the body argument hasn't *quite* been settled yet...!

I guess if my18-105 and 70-300 are judged to be better than the 18 / 28- 200 / 300 then I'll stick with those and save my money for something else, I just so rarely go into my bag for the 70-300 through laziness and because its hassle, not so much through the fact I don't want to use it! Although a trip to Morocco in the autumn did force me to take only 1 lens, and I did wish for a bit more occasionally....
 
On D7100 both 18-105 and 18-200 are not good enough for the sensor. i.e they can't resolve the full 24mp. Not sure 18-300 will do it either. So if you do go and get a D7100 then better lens are needed. ;)
 
OK, so any suggestions as to alternative decent zoom lenses (Nikon fit obviously, but any make) that wouldn't leave me unable to resolve the full 24mp, but wouldn't leave me wishing I had something bigger / smaller?
 
James Blonde said:
Thanks Peter! I'm struggling to justify a D600 (I've not yet seen a strong enough argument to go FF - yet... and therein lies the doubt...!), the specs on the D7100 just look fantastic, and I've still got to afford my IR conversion on the D90, so I reckon I'll end up going for the D7100. It would also allow me to keep my current lenses and upgrade over time, rather than write 2 of them off instantly! But the body argument hasn't *quite* been settled yet...!

I guess if my18-105 and 70-300 are judged to be better than the 18 / 28- 200 / 300 then I'll stick with those and save my money for something else, I just so rarely go into my bag for the 70-300 through laziness and because its hassle, not so much through the fact I don't want to use it! Although a trip to Morocco in the autumn did force me to take only 1 lens, and I did wish for a bit more occasionally....
Click to expand...

They are.
 
I think you need to work out which body you are buying first, depending on what you want / need from it. Then start thinking about lenses.

I had a D7000 and had a 50mm prime and 18-200 VR which was a great multipurpose lens and took great photos, but it couldn't deliver results at 50mm as good as the prime (nor should it be able to) so I used the prime often.

In the end I got a 24-85mm (non-VR) nikon lens and it was great, sharp and lived on the camera a lot of the time, great everyday lens, but I'd always keep the 50mm in the bag too. I used the 18-200 if I needed more reach eg. For wildlife etc. but was never happy to leave it on the camera because for me it was too big, heavy and I preferred the 24-85 most of the time.

If you are really considering FF you need to know what benefits it will give you. I think buying FF and sticking a super zoom which covers 18-300 sort of misses the point a bit (well for me) because you could get vastly better results with a prime or shorter zoom (like a 24-70 or 28-75) but that will cost much more hence your needs will dictate if this is the path to go down.

Do you shoot RAW or JPEG? Do you do much Post processing? You mention landscape photography, most people doing this prefer a dedicated wide lens for less distortion / superior sharpness etc...
 
I bought the D7100 today, so that decision has now been made!

In terms of my lens stable, I've got:

Sigma 10-20
Nikon 50mm F1.8
Nikon 18-105 VR
Nikon 70-300 VRII

I agree with your point about going FF and getting a superzoom - missing the point, but just giving me that flexibility (or allowing me to remain lazy...)

I'd always aim to keep the 50mm F1.8, and now I've decided on the D7100, I don't need to replace the Sigma 10-20. I'd suggest that I'll be keeping the 18-105 to leave on my D90, but it's really what to replace that with, and get that little bit of extra reach if possible.

I shoot RAW, and do do some post processing.

Hopefully my camera decision makes all of this a bit clearer! :)
 
Like I said the 18-200 VR is a great lens and is probably long enough for you. Good replacement for the 18-105, adds VR which is handy. If you buy second hand the mark 1 version is £300-400, good value I think.

Not tried the 18-300, that covers a HUGE range though!
 
Last edited:
johncook said:
Like I said the 18-200 VR is a great lens and is probably long enough for you. Good replacement for the 18-105, adds VR which is handy. If you buy second hand the mark 1 version is £300-400, good value I think.

Not tried the 18-300, that covers a HUGE range though!
Click to expand...

The 18-200 is definitely not a great lens.
 
18-200mm

38mm f16

248183_10152825385430305_662849885_n.jpg


943758_10152825386250305_1618308832_n.jpg


105mm f5.6 ISO 400

393103_10152828014560305_1054174187_n.jpg


217157_10152828014555305_108383535_n.jpg


Love this lens. Now I have a set up where the 18-200 is my go-to lens. Only change lenses if I need a specialist one (low light / macro / UW)
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
F16 should be less sharp than wide open but the 18-200 is very sharp wide open. Only corners are soft.
Click to expand...

It's a lens built for convenience Phil and thats its best attribute. In terms of I.Q the 18-55 & 55-200 kit lens zooms are better. I can totally understand why someone would buy one for holidays etc.

Even you obviously don't rate it that much or why would you bother to make an offer on Tony's 70-200 when this already covers the same range if it was really that good?

Superzooms have there place no doubt for some but lets be honest here every single zoom lens Nikon have in current production is better in terms of I.Q than both of the 18-200 and the 28-300. The only people that seem to disagree are you and Ken Rockwell.
 
Soda Farl said:
It's a lens built for convenience Phil and thats its best attribute. In terms of I.Q the 18-55 & 55-200 kit lens zooms are better. I can totally understand why someone would buy one for holidays etc.

Even you obviously don't rate it that much or why would you bother to make an offer on Tony's 70-200 when this already covers the same range if it was really that good?

Superzooms have there place no doubt for some but lets be honest here every single zoom lens Nikon have in current production is better in terms of I.Q than both of the 18-200 and the 28-300. The only people that seem to disagree are you and Ken Rockwell.
Click to expand...

I'd love a 70-200/2.8 for the speed Tommy, that's all. 2 stops really would come in handy sometimes.

In terms of sharpness, I really don't have a problem with it - yes my primes and 12-24 are sharper and it may be built for convenience but I honestly can't knock it and the first thing I look for in any lens is sharpness.

I would have absolutely no problems shooting anything within it's range and like I said, would only swap for a specialist lens not because I need a sharper one.

People have their beliefs and that's fine...but I own it and state that for me, it's a fine lens.
 
Yep, I'd read the Ken Rockwell reviews too! Can't remember whether it was the 28-300 or the 18-300 he raved about? Hence why I'm at this juncture! I'd always understood the 18-105mm wasn't particularly well rated, although I know the 70-300mm VRII is much better, and I'd hate to have lost range that I already have. My argument for one WAS one of convenience, weight and flexibility for travelling, but maybe I'm just being lazy, and maybe carry lenses in my pockets rather than my rucksack!

Hmm, I guess if I'm losing out so much by going for a superzoom, I'll have to rethink my plans!
 
James Blonde said:
Yep, I'd read the Ken Rockwell reviews too! Can't remember whether it was the 28-300 or the 18-300 he raved about? Hence why I'm at this juncture! I'd always understood the 18-105mm wasn't particularly well rated, although I know the 70-300mm VRII is much better, and I'd hate to have lost range that I already have. My argument for one WAS one of convenience, weight and flexibility for travelling, but maybe I'm just being lazy, and maybe carry lenses in my pockets rather than my rucksack!

Hmm, I guess if I'm losing out so much by going for a superzoom, I'll have to rethink my plans!
Click to expand...

Try and find some bad quality images and if you find that many you have your answer :)
 
Going for a super zoom you lose aperture. At 70-200 range the 18-200 will be stopped down a lot lower, meaning you get far more depth of field and less bokeh. It's a terrible lens for sport when I tried, I much preferred my dirt cheap non-VR 70-300 4-5.6 over the 18-200 VR.
 
There are 2 types of photographer A. People interested in gear and "sharpness" B. People that are interested in the actual photographs.

The 18-200 is a perfectly acceptable lens and as phil always posts examples to prove, it has an acceptable level of sharpness.

As for f/16 tommy it most likely is heading into diffraction territory. Stick with my original comment that you copy, f/8 and a milk bottle end will be sharp LOL
 
TonyNI said:
There are 2 types of photographer A. People interested in gear and "sharpness" B. People that are interested in the actual photographs.

The 18-200 is a perfectly acceptable lens and as phil always posts examples to prove, it has an acceptable level of sharpness.

As for f/16 tommy it most likely is heading into diffraction territory. Stick with my original comment that you copy, f/8 and a milk bottle end will be sharp LOL
Click to expand...

Lol you was the originator Tony and I did think he was trying to steal the phrase!!

That's the point I'm trying to make in so many threads now - for what it is, it performs very well.

If you're going to pixel peep then you'll see it's not as sharp as a prime for example but those of use that enjoy photos instead of pixels, it copes admirably.
 
I can't think of anything amusing to say I have been up from 6 with the guts running outta me. :thumbsdown:

Ooh aye I am of today Tony isn't. :bang:
 
TonyNI said:
There are 2 types of photographer A. People interested in gear and "sharpness" B. People that are interested in the actual photographs.
Click to expand...

This a million times over, the current and growing obsession with sharpness at 100% viewed from 30cm is depressing.
 
I'll throw my 2p in...

I started with a D5000, 18-105 and 35. Soon added the much-loved 70-300. Then I got the 18-200, and after that the other two zooms never left the house.
Yes, it's not the sharpest or brightest lens you'll ever own. But it's probably the most versatile. For general wandering around purposes, it's great. Throw a 35/50 prime (for low light or shallow DoF) and a CPL in the bag and you've got enough for most day-to-day or travel use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top