Donald Abernathy wrote:
I have used the Nikon 16-85 and Nikon 70-300 for some time and been pleased with
the image quality of both. I was skeptical about the 18-300 because of it's range. I spent a couple of days comparing the iq of the 18-300 with both of the other lens, using the same D300 with the same settings. I could not tell the difference. I was impressed enough with the 18-300 that I took it alone to Yellowstone and Glacier about 3 weeks ago. I was pleased with the lens in every way.
Some of the photos are below
Some of the comments being made about this lens are being made by those who have not tried it. I was doubtful, too. But pleased with the lens
Don, I'm glad you like the lens, but there is no way the IQ is as good as the other two you have used, the 16-85 and 70-300. Moreover, though it seems you're a good photographer, the images here are just not all they could be and I think it's because of the lens. You're obviously better than the gear based on everything else. There is just no detail in the fur, the eyes and skin of those animals. I think the 70-300 VR would do better at 300mm and it's not really known for exceptional IQ at 300mm.
If you're going on a fabulous holiday in Yellowstone and the Tetons, I'd want the very best I could afford, not a do anything but soft super ratio zoom. The lifetime images are just too important, I would imagine. Just think, for around the same money, you could have mounted a super sharp Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD model, and what a difference that would be. As good as you seem to be with a great photographic eye, you need that type optic to do you justice. Really.
I did enjoy the set though, but I was looking for what you suggested wasn't there.
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
|Dirt Hose by poppyjk|
|European bee-eaters by drvanger|
from A Big Year - birds
|Fat Is Beautiful Guinea 2008 DP by MarioSS|
from - Fat is Beautiful - (Woman's Portrait n Black and White+ A Border)