Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR
Hi there guys i am looking fot a 300 mil zoom lens. I came down to those two lenses so i need to ask the members that have used them, witch is the best lens of the two from the aspect of sharpnes, and AF Lag. I will be using those lenses wit the Nikon D7100.
Thanks in advance for your opinions and your time.
#1. "RE: Nikon 28-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 0mklass Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 14-May-13 02:12 PM
What other lenses do your have? (It would be helpful if you filled out you equipment profile so we could see what equipment your are using.) What are your shooting primarily?
However, as a generalization:
If you want a 1-lens solution the 28-300 would be a better choice (or even better for your D7100 is the 18-300 DX).
However, depending on the other lenses that you have, the 70-300 VR is a better lens for responsiveness and IQ, not to mention much less expensive. Also consider the Tamron equivalent (SP VC) as it is every bit as good as the Nikon.
Visit my nikonians gallery
#2. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 0blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 14-May-13 04:34 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Mick - the 70-300. But the questions are all reasonable ones, and the answers might affect the recommendation.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#3. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 0MEMcD Nikonian since 24th Dec 2007Tue 14-May-13 09:03 PM
If optical performance and AF speed are your primary criteria, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR should be at the top of your list.
If you want the convenience of a Jack-of-All-Trades Lens, the 18-300mm is the best option for your D7100.
#4. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 0WD4MLA Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Tue 14-May-13 11:03 PM
While I have never used the 18-300vr, I do own the 70-300vr and I think it is one of the best consumer lens that Nikon puts out. Here are a couple of shots taken with it.
Click on image for larger view
Click on image for larger view
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina
#5. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 4Wed 15-May-13 01:28 AM
Thanks guys this is what I am looking for. Speed and quality Relatively speaking, cause of consumer construction and tolerances.
I am very satisfied with your posts and your guidance but we sill did not have any comments or photo samples of the 18-300. If there is any one out there that owns both lenses lets have some side by side comparisons just for argument sake.
Thanks for all your input guys, and for the fantastic photographs Jerry.
By the way I am also a HAM with the call KE5I, so 73's and lets hope to have some more posts on the question.
#6. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 0
It really comes down to convenience vs. potential image quality, and much you value each. You could make a case for going BOTH ways!
For the lightweight take it and forget it option, the 18-300 or 18-200 are possibilities depending on what you typically shoot. Personally, I'm not a big fan of superzooms, because of the inevitable distortion at most focal lengths. Sharpness is much better for superzooms than 10 years ago, but still not as good as most restricted range lenses. And superzooms almost always ding you with loss of speed as well as loss of sharpness at the long end.
I prefer to carry a 2- or 3-lens kit with f/3.5-4.5 lenses for price, weight, and decent speed/quality. I'm still using an 18-70 and 70-300 from my D100 days, and these have served me well, albeit with some lens changing on occasion. I throw in a 12-24 f/4 if I'm in the country doing landscapes. If you are looking for a long lens for the zoo or wildlife, then the 80-400 VR is a good performer, but costs more $$$. If it were me, I'd get the 70-300 VR (and I will probably actually do this myself to replace my 2nd gen 70-300 non-VR), but of course you are not me and may not shoot the types of images I shoot.
And I may yet break down and get the jack-of-all-trades walkabout 18-200 or 18-300 lenses for those times when I don't want to carry a full kit and bag.
Cheers, and good luck making your choice.
#7. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 0
I can't speak specifically to the 18-300, but I have used both the 18-200 VRII and the 70-300 VR. As others have said, it all depends on how and what you shoot. The 18-200 is my wife's go-to lens on her D90 because it gives her tremendous focal length flexibility for any situation in a single lens (and the 18-300 would also, and even more so). Complaints about sharpness and distortion will always be part of the critique of super-zooms, but I can attest from my own pictures, my wife's, and a number of things I have seen on the web and in print that the 18-200 can produce excellent images.
By contrast, I view the 70-300 as one of the two specialty lenses in my standard 3-zoom-lens kit. My primary lens is the Nikkor 16-85VR -- it is on my camera 90% of the time. The 70-300 covers the telephoto end of the range, and the Tokina 11-16 covers the ultra-wide. I do not use the 70-300 often, but when I do I am very glad that I have it and it performs extremely well. (Having said that, I am being lured by the siren song of Nikon's new 70-200 f/4, which may replace the 70-300 in my bag -- not so much because I need it, but because I WANT it! NAS strikes again..)
If you are looking at one of these lenses primarily as a telephoto, then the 70-300 VR with its optical properties and attractive price point is a no-brainer. (Also, as Mick said, the Tamron equivalent is similarly well-regarded.) However, you need to be comfortable carrying and using multiple lenses. I have been doing that since film days so it doesn't bother me -- it's just part of the way I work. If you want to move seamlessly between wide and telephoto compositions in a single location (my wife's way of working) then you may find it worthwhile to trade the telephoto-specific properties of the 70-300 lenses for the unique focal length span of the 18-200 or 18-300.
Finally, the other place where a super-zoom makes sense is as a travel lens. (This is in fact how I have used my wife's 18-200). If you are traveling and want your camera but don't want a bag full of glass the super-zoom can be an excellent compromise.
Visit my Nikonians gallery
#8. "RE: Nikon 18-300 VR II or Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR" | In response to Reply # 7Fri 24-May-13 10:24 PM
Thanks Dave and Rrowlett for your help.
I have concluded that the better lens is the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR. I read reviews and I spend plenty of time researching the lenses to come to this decision. I am including some review (links) for every one to see. The first three are for the 70-300mm
And the last three for the 18-300mm
I hope that this will be helpful to other members as ti was for me.
Thanks again to everyones contribution to the post.
Nikonians membership -
"My most important photographic investment, after the camera"
Visit my Nikonians gallery.