Pros and Cons of These Two Lens

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Aside from price/weight what are the pros and cons of these two lenses? 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Vs. 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

They will be used on a D5100 (DX Nikon body) and will be used for (in order of most use) Wildlife (Size of an eagle to the size of a deer), Macro, and Portrait

PS. Sorry I post so much you guys are just so much more helpful than Google.

[Shadowman]

Aside from price/weight what are the pros and cons of these two lenses? 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Vs. 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

They will be used on a D5100 (DX Nikon body) and will be used for (in order of most use) Wildlife (Size of an eagle to the size of a deer), Macro, and Portrait

PS. Sorry I post so much you guys are just so much more helpful than Google.

Why do you need Google when you have the link to the Nikon site and you can do a lens compare on both lenses? If you have very little experience with lenses then the differences won't jump out at you, but start with the weight of each lens, consider how that may or may not affect your shooting style and go from there.

[Manfred M]

My understanding is that the older model has a slightly faster maximum aperture f/5.6 versus f/6.3 (i.e. 1/3 stop). Optical performance is similar. You've already noted the weight; the newer lens weighs a lot less (around 10 oz, 300g) than the older lens.

As mentioned before, for a number of reasons, it is going to be a marginal wildlife lens, but if the lighting is good and you are close enough, you should be able to pull off some decent shots.

It is also not a macro lens; closest focus distance is around 0.5m. So closeups, perhaps, but definitely not true 1:1 macro shots.

Portraits, yes, you should be able to do decent portraits with this lens, but with its 7-blade design, you are not going to get that great, creamy bokeh that the higher end lenses are going to give you.

As with any "all purpose" lens, the lens designers have had to consider too many trade offs to be able to produce a lens with outstanding performance characteristics. It is a good lens, not a great lens.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Why do you need Google when you have the link to the Nikon site and you can do a lens compare on both lenses? If you have very little experience with lenses then the differences won't jump out at you, but start with the weight of each lens, consider how that may or may not affect your shooting style and go from there.

Because as for the other differences I am not sure how they would affect the outcome of the photograph.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

My understanding is that the older model has a slightly faster maximum aperture f/5.6 versus f/6.3 (i.e. 1/3 stop). Optical performance is similar. You've already noted the weight; the newer lens weighs a lot less (around 10 oz, 300g) than the older lens.

As mentioned before, for a number of reasons, it is going to be a marginal wildlife lens, but if the lighting is good and you are close enough, you should be able to pull off some decent shots.

It is also not a macro lens; closest focus distance is around 0.5m. So closeups, perhaps, but definitely not true 1:1 macro shots.

Portraits, yes, you should be able to do decent portraits with this lens, but with its 7-blade design, you are not going to get that great, creamy bokeh that the higher end lenses are going to give you.

As with any "all purpose" lens, the lens designers have had to consider too many trade offs to be able to produce a lens with outstanding performance characteristics. It is a good lens, not a great lens.

Is the 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR worth the 120 dollars extra in your opinion? You have an idea of what I am looking for. Weight isn't that big of a deal to me. My concern is the quality and being able to get that photo quick enough. My 70-200mm f/4 is not quite fast enough, but my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 has been fast enough so far in my opinion. And yeah I am aware of the macro part you mentioned.

[purplehaze]

Adrian, I am at a loss to understand why you would want the 18-300 mm when I see you already have the 70-200 mm f/4. I have both; I bought the 18-300 mm when it first came out (so it is the older version) and I can tell you that the quality is far inferior to what you will have been getting from the 70-200. It is not as good at the wide end as my 18-105 mm kit lens was and it is quite disappointing at the long. I came to only want to use it between 100 mm and 200 mm focal lengths, which is inside the range of your 70-200. That was on my D90, I am not sure I have ever used it on my larger megapixel D7100, where its flaws would be even more noticeable. In my opinion, you would be better off to get two lenses that cover the focal lengths you want at either end of your 70-200 mm. But if you are adamant that you want the 18-300, I'd be pleased to entertain your offer for my lightly used copy, if you care to make one through private messaging.

[William W]

Is the 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR worth the 120 dollars extra in your opinion? You have an idea of what I am looking for. Weight isn't that big of a deal to me. My concern is the quality and being able to get that photo quick enough. My 70-200mm f/4 is not quite fast enough, but my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 has been fast enough so far in my opinion. And yeah I am aware of the macro part you mentioned.

If your 70 to 200 F/4 "is not fast enough", then I seriously doubt that either of the 18 to 300 lenses will be fast enough for the same shooting conditions, as both of those 18 to 300 mm lenses will have a maximum aperture of F/5.6 or F/6.3 at about FL = 159mm and also (an educated guess) will be at F/4 at around FL = 80mm.

***

When we speak of "LENS SPEED" or a lens "BEING FAST" we are referring to the Lens's MAXIMUM APERTURE.

The terms "Lens Speed" and a "Fast Lens" is NOT referring to the Speed of the AUTO FOCUS of the lens.

Are we discussing the same topic?

WW

[William W]

Adrian, I am at a loss to understand why you would want the 18-300 mm when I see you already have the 70-200 mm f/4. . .

Me too.

I was just reading the Adrian's other two threads - the three are closely related.

(it is difficult having parallel and related conversations in different threads).

WW

[Manfred M]

Is the 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR worth the 120 dollars extra in your opinion? You have an idea of what I am looking for. Weight isn't that big of a deal to me. My concern is the quality and being able to get that photo quick enough. My 70-200mm f/4 is not quite fast enough, but my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 has been fast enough so far in my opinion. And yeah I am aware of the macro part you mentioned.

No, I would not pay and extra $120 for the extra 1/3 stop. I personally don't think this is necessarily the lens you should be looking at, especially when you have a really nice f/4 70-200mm lens; that is a really nice portrait lens, even on a DX body, as long as you have enough space to shoot with.

I'm not quite sure if we are using the same terminology regarding speed; I'm referring to maximum shooting aperture. The 18-55mm is 1/3 stop faster at 18mm, but is a full stop slower at 55mm; it is not a particularly fast lens and is the same speed as the faster 18-300mm you are looking at.

You might (marginally) get away with the 2x convertor on the 70-200mm lens. That would give you a f/8 140-400mm lens to shoot with. Our 150-500mm Sigma is f/6.3 and is probably as dim as I would want to shoot wildlife with.

I would probably opt for the 1.4x teleconverter as it would only cost you one stop in speed and give you close to the maximum focal length you would get on an 18-300mm lens or a 1.7x teleconverter that would cost you about 1-1/2 stops.

That still leaves the macro question, but I don't shoot macro at all, so have no suggestions on that front.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Adrian, I am at a loss to understand why you would want the 18-300 mm when I see you already have the 70-200 mm f/4. I have both; I bought the 18-300 mm when it first came out (so it is the older version) and I can tell you that the quality is far inferior to what you will have been getting from the 70-200. It is not as good at the wide end as my 18-105 mm kit lens was and it is quite disappointing at the long. I came to only want to use it between 100 mm and 200 mm focal lengths, which is inside the range of your 70-200. That was on my D90, I am not sure I have ever used it on my larger megapixel D7100, where its flaws would be even more noticeable. In my opinion, you would be better off to get two lenses that cover the focal lengths you want at either end of your 70-200 mm. But if you are adamant that you want the 18-300, I'd be pleased to entertain your offer for my lightly used copy, if you care to make one through private messaging.

It's a great all in one lens. Instead of carrying around a heavy 70-200mm lens I can carry this small 18-300mm lens. My 200mm just isn't reaching far enough for what I want. Other lenses are heavy and extremely costly. I'd want a 400mm at bare minimum I'd much prefer a 500mm or a 600mm zoom (not prime) but it's so costly. Having the 18-300 lens I wouldn't have to worry about being to close and not getting close enough. Although it's only 100mm closer it's still better and the price is only 1000 for the newest version compared to something like 2k.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

No, I would not pay and extra $120 for the extra 1/3 stop. I personally don't think this is necessarily the lens you should be looking at, especially when you have a really nice f/4 70-200mm lens; that is a really nice portrait lens, even on a DX body, as long as you have enough space to shoot with.

I'm not quite sure if we are using the same terminology regarding speed; I'm referring to maximum shooting aperture. The 18-55mm is 1/3 stop faster at 18mm, but is a full stop slower at 55mm; it is not a particularly fast lens and is the same speed as the faster 18-300mm you are looking at.

You might (marginally) get away with the 2x convertor on the 70-200mm lens. That would give you a f/8 140-400mm lens to shoot with. Our 150-500mm Sigma is f/6.3 and is probably as dim as I would want to shoot wildlife with.

I would probably opt for the 1.4x teleconverter as it would only cost you one stop in speed and give you close to the maximum focal length you would get on an 18-300mm lens or a 1.7x teleconverter that would cost you about 1-1/2 stops.

That still leaves the macro question, but I don't shoot macro at all, so have no suggestions on that front.

What lens do you suggest I get then that is no more than 1,000? Let's ignore macro and portrait and just assume I will only use this for wildlife.

[Manfred M]

What lens do you suggest I get then that is no more than 1,000? Let's ignore macro and portrait and just assume I will only use this for wildlife.

I suspect that the only lens (if you are planning to buy new) that will fit your price range is the Sigma 120-400mm f/4 - f/5.6.

http://adencamera.com/product-overvi...199&Category=7

I buy a lot of my lenses from this Toronto based retailer. They usually have the best prices.