$300 off the 18-300mm... I *almost* envy DX owners : )

Seriously, great deals from the rebates., but I think the largest percentage rebate is the 18-300mm... If it's anything near the 28-300mm for FX, there should be a lot of happy owners out there.

So who's jumping on which lens? The 24-120mm is tempting, but I think I'll stick with the 28-300mm for now.

Well im probably jumping on the 24-120 f4 - I have D600 and kit lens so this should be nice upgrade - BB has new price matching policy so it's same price as Amazon, B&H, & Adorama

NikonShoot3r said:

bocajrs wrote:

Well im probably jumping on the 24-120 f4 - I have D600 and kit lens so this should be nice upgrade - BB has new price matching policy so it's same price as Amazon, B&H, & Adorama

Click to expand...

Very nice... I tried out the 24-120 and it was very, very good ... It was actually sharper at 120mm than 70-90mm wide open.... And very sharp at 24mm wide open for a zoom

well..I couldnt wait anymore..just bought 24 120 f4 from BB..kit lens for sale on Ebay

NikonShoot3r said:

bocajrs wrote:

well..I couldnt wait anymore..just bought 24 120 f4 from BB..kit lens for sale on Ebay

Click to expand...

best wishes... I'm sure you'll love it

I ordered one from BHP, should be here wednesday. Will be used on a D7000.

fotod7k said:

fotod7k wrote:

I ordered one from BHP, should be here wednesday. Will be used on a D7000.

Click to expand...

very nice good luck

ohcello said:

ohcello wrote:

Seriously, great deals from the rebates., but I think the largest percentage rebate is the 18-300mm... If it's anything near the 28-300mm for FX, there should be a lot of happy owners out there.

So who's jumping on which lens? The 24-120mm is tempting, but I think I'll stick with the 28-300mm for now.

Click to expand...

I don't know. From my trying the 18-300, I thought it was pretty dreadful from 200-300mm and slightly worse than the 18-200 in that same range, at least the copy I used. Also, the FX 28-300 to me seems poorer than the 18-200 on DX. That puts them all in around the same IQ range to my eyes. I'm not sure how many happy owners there will be depending on what they owned previously.

The 24-120 f/4 looks to be a fairly good deal nd the IQ isn't poor at most ranges. I'd probably get that if my old 35-70 f/2.8 wasn't so darned good. The 28 f/1.8 looks like a real bargain with this sale as does the 60 f/2.8G Micro.

Has anybody used the 18-300 and the 18-200 on the D5200?

I wonder how they perform on such high resolution. I would think that the 18-300 would perform better than the 18-200 because it's newer and is perhaps tested on those sensors when built. (Just guessing here...)

[No message]

nilsch said:

nilsch wrote:

Has anybody used the 18-300 and the 18-200 on the D5200?

I wonder how they perform on such high resolution. I would think that the 18-300 would perform better than the 18-200 because it's newer and is perhaps tested on those sensors when built. (Just guessing here...)

Click to expand...

I doubt either lens can get anywhere near to the resolution of the D5200. When you get into higher pixel densities, good glass is required to make good use of it. Both lenses were not designed with great IQ in mind. Acceptable IQ is more the ticket considering the huge compromises needed to allow such a huge zoom ratio.

One of the primary advantages to this kind of camera is interchangeable lens facility. We can get higher image quality by matching quality glass to the need at hand. It may be less convenient, but then so is an SLR type camera, but we want that huge advantage of interchangeable lenses or we might as well stick with a cheaper bridge or superzoom model where it is more convenient all around. Tosssing away that advantage along with the image quality derived for convenience seems to me to be a huge waste of time.

I think, but don't know, that many photographers get a DSLR with the idea it will automatically give them stunning and compelling images better than the camera that was replaced. When they realize it will not and the image quality doesn't get better by that order of magnitude, this photographer decides to go back to his fixed lens camera. The way many do that is to buy some 18-270 Tamron or similar lens and place it on their DSLR to live there forever more.

Others realize the IQ loss but still aren't getting that good of images anyway because they choose not to really passionately learn their camera or photography in general. They might also get that 18-200 plus, but call it a "Travel" lens to sooth the ego. I don't know. It's just what I see. It's massively trading off quality for convenience. The larger the zoom ratio, the bigger the trade off.

I'd much rather see the travel lens buyer get a single 35 f/1.8 and take it on holiday. I think the quality would rise as they learn it and might reinvigorate their passion for photography.

Take care and have a great weekend.

Thanks for the input. I totally agree that a superzoom cannot compete with high quality glass. I have more than a dozen lenses, most are fast primes and some fast zooms.

Nevertheless, I have appreciated the 18-200mm while traveling and hiking. When stopped down to f8 it does a decent job, although some PP is needed.

I do not agree that one can just as well get a compact with built in zoom instead of a DSLR with a superzoom. The quality can not be compared at all. Anobody who claims otherwise can not have shot with both solutions (I have).

I just womdered whether the 18-300mm had more resolving power than the 18-200mm. If Nikon releases a D400 later this year (which I think they will), I will upgrade my D300. For 90% of my shooting I use primes or f2.8 zooms, but it would be nice to have a one lens solution (when traveling/hiking) that was able to take advantage of the 24mpx when stopped down. I don't think the 18-200 is up to the job, but hope the new 18-300 is.

nilsch said:

nilsch wrote:

I do not agree that one can just as well get a compact with built in zoom instead of a DSLR with a superzoom. The quality can not be compared at all. Anobody who claims otherwise can not have shot with both solutions (I have).

I just womdered whether the 18-300mm had more resolving power than the 18-200mm. If Nikon releases a D400 later this year (which I think they will), I will upgrade my D300. For 90% of my shooting I use primes or f2.8 zooms, but it would be nice to have a one lens solution (when traveling/hiking) that was able to take advantage of the 24mpx when stopped down. I don't think the 18-200 is up to the job, but hope the new 18-300 is.

Click to expand...

If you're forcing yourself to stop down, much of the convenience is gone worrying about what aperture you're in. Why not get something like a light weight 16-35 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 VR. Put one on the camera and one in a belt pouch. You'd have an excellent combination and only one possible change situation.

You're saving the good glass for average times like a birthday party and bring the poor glass for the times where a stunning image situation may present. I would think travel and hiking would need the good glass. This is one reason I think it's an excuse for many.

As far as using a compact, of course I have. A good photographer with a good compact might exceed a novice with the best SLR made. Some of the better compact produce some pretty nice images. Regardless, if the shot is important enough to move to an SLR, the shot is important enough to use your best glass, not settle for a tradeoff.

I love my little Canon S95 Point and Shoot for just messing around when I'm too lazy to get out the better gear in the back seat or closet.

Sunrise at the beach balcony



My eldest daughter sipping coffee on the balcony with dear old dad.



Abandoned house in the rocky mountains



Mystery Valley monument






--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

I have the 18-200 and 18-300 for my DX Nikons (D90's, D7000's) and I find them both great lenses. As one of the other posts suggested, you need to be shooting around f8 to get the best results. I find the extra reach of the 18-300 invaluable for my travel snaps. The IQ is comparable on both lenses. I also have the 28-300 for my D700's and D800E and find that a great FX equivalent to the 18-200 (DX). Many people don't appreciate that you simply haven't the time to switch lenses or cameras when you are travelling. Despite having over 40 Nikkor lenses, the superzooms are my 'go to' lens choice for travel. I have prints 1.5m wide on my walls that are as good as stuff I shot on tranny with RZ67 (6x7cm). I'm looking forward to using them soon on the new D7100 as well!

Couldn't agree more. Its not always about the best piece of glass, is about the grey matter between your ears and how it perceive light and composition. I think there is a lot of snob factor and cache about brand and lens ownership. One of the best things I ever did was to buy a little 10mp Samsung EX1 with a divine fully articulated screen and a fast f1.8 lens. Freed me up instantly. Carrying a camera was no longer a chore.I'd been carrying Nikon gear as a professional for over 40 years. Hardly any zoom to speak of, but then that encourages the photographer to think and to MOVE. The flip screen brought me back to happier shooting times with a Hasselblad and composing the shot on that flat ground glass. I've shot two calendars using that little EX1 on RAW and you'd be stretched to pick the difference between it or a DX or Micro4/3rds camera. What are we all taking photo's for? Billboards and monster posters? Lets get real here. Enjoy

thomo said:

thomo wrote:

Many people don't appreciate that you simply haven't the time to switch lenses or cameras when you are travelling.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. I found it cumbersome swapping lenses, and making my traveling companion wait, on a trip to Austria last year. In the end I simply passed on many shots. A good travel zoom would have sent me home with more shots.

Of course, when I am alone, taking my time, then having a selection of lenses becomes a more reasonable proposition.

Of the travel zooms for DX, I find myself looking at the Sigma 18-250. Anybody compare this to the Nikons? DPR gave it a good review, and it's cheaper, smaller, and lighter than either the 18-200 or 18-300, which makes it very attractive as a travel zoom.

I guess another question to ask on any of these is - are you better off using a good compact when traveling & sightseeing with a non-photographer. Personally, I my vision makes it hard to give up a viewfinder (need glasses up close) and the thought of relying on a screen is not pleasant for me, so I'll probably go with the lens.

georgehudetz said:

georgehudetz wrote:

georgehudetz said:

thomo wrote:

Many people don't appreciate that you simply haven't the time to switch lenses or cameras when you are travelling.

Click to expand...

..... I guess another question to ask on any of these is - are you better off using a good compact when traveling & sightseeing with a non-photographer. Personally, I my vision makes it hard to give up a viewfinder (need glasses up close) and the thought of relying on a screen is not pleasant for me, so I'll probably go with the lens.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean - partners can sometimes get a bit impatient when travelling with an enthusiast photographer.

I also take a Fuji X100 LE with me on my travels for when I need to look less conspicuous - my wife seems happier when I have that over my shoulder rather than the D7000+grip and 18-300!

The problem with many happy snapper cameras is the startup time and the time it takes to compose an image using the rear display - people seem to take ages to grab a single shot. The X100 is fast on all counts, has IQ as good as any Nikon DX - you need to use 'trap' focusing and hyper focal distances though because the auto focusing can be a bit slow for 'street' shooting - no problems for normal use though.

Long time lurker, first time poster. I've been reading various threads and reviews regarding the "travel zooms", and I'm amazed at the prejudice against them by many "pros" and "primers". I'm not a pro, but maybe someday.... For now I'm a hobbyist, and my photography is about 80% documentation and 20% attempting to "record images" in a more artful way. Perhaps the anti-super-zoom bias I am seeing is due to many posters here being just "image creators" and not "documentors", but I would venture that DPREVIEW is more heavily USED by hobbyists and amateurs like me who are looking for information to help them make choices and get better at photography.

I've been shooting for 35 years and have spent some money over that time, but I'm not rich. I have to choose equipment on a tight budget, aiming to collect lenses that will give me the best chance of catching all the moments I need to in addition to allowing me to perhaps create more "masterful" works. I am often constrained by my choices of location, which in recent years involve long-ish hikes in remote areas. In particular, I've been going into slot canyons in Utah and Arizona, and these trips involve clamoring over boulders and climbing up and down - sometimes squeezing through tight spots. For this reason, I can't carry four different prime lenses along with my food and gallon of water - just too much. So what? Well, it means that a so-called travel zoom is really one of the best options I have besides downgrading to a point and shoot. I am shooting with a D-90 (I suppose that in iteself will earn me some upturned noses). I currently have Nikon primes of 28, 35, 50 and 300 along with some midrange zooms (the kit lenses), but none of these give me the complete flexibility I need in a slot canyon. I also have the Sigma 10-20 and a macro, but again they don't give me all the choices I want for framing my shots. Somewhat obviously, these are low light situations and I use a tripod, so the speed of the lens is not a major factor. A final relevant note - changing lenses in dusty, very rocky canyons is not ideal due to the risks of sensor contamination and dropping something and having to carry the resultant junk out in my pack.

Now, my wife was given a Nikon 18-300 for Christmas and she loves it. I have been quite impressed with the quality of many of her shots both near and far. I'm considering getting a similar lens - perhaps a less expensive competitor like the Sigma 18-250 w/macro - because I could stick it on my camera and be ready for most situations in the slots. I could then pack my 10-20 in my bag (it's a no-brainer among my lenses for getting interesting perspectives in confined spaces) and feel that I have a good chance of getting some great photos. I will mention that shooting with an 18-105 on some previous trips, I have come away with 20x30 prints that I think are fantastic. I would just like to have a bit more reach and not have to crop, since for now I don't have 24 or 36 megapixels to work with. Can someone tell me where the flaw is in my thinking? Here are my points:

1. Zoom lens IQ is lower than primes (generally - as stated in thousands of posts in dozens of forums and verified by testing and commented on by the experts). Does this really need to be brought up in every new thread about zoom lenses? Do the posters who parrot this believe they are telling anyone anything new, or are they just showing us all how smart they are?

2. This forum is about helping people get information (reviews), not just to discuss.

3. People on a budget cannot afford multiple $1,000+ prime lenses very easily.

4. I need flexibility for my chosen venue - the more the better.

5. Lens manufacturers are making significant headway towards creating super-zooms that are good performers. Is it wrong thinking to take advantage of this?

6. Does it make one a better or more artful photographer because they "zoom" by changing their lens instead of turning a ring?

7. Does a forum noob have a right to post such heresy?

Good points.

Really, for the casual user who posts only on places like Facebook, or the web, and who is a hobbyist or lower level (i.e. not trying to make money or get published in like Nat Geo or something), we are at a point technologically speaking where pretty much any camera and lens combo is going to give acceptable results.

Convenience plays a large role in what most pick. Price plays a role in what most pick.

No matter what gear you choose, it all comes down to the individual recognizing the limitations of their gear, and how to get the most out of it.

I'm not a pro either, just a guy who picked up a D90 when my son was born about 4 years ago because my wife wanted it. It sat on the shelf largely unused until about a year ago when I picked it up and started the learning process.

And, just for the record, is your oldest daughter married?