Nikon Nikkor 18-300mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR lens review

[@TheGizwop]

Just waiting for mine to show up in the post can't wait

[@DavidMosby]

Thanks for the comparison of 5.6 to the 6.3. Most reviews don't cover this. Used, these two lenses are closer in price than new. I was curious on the weight. As long as I am not shooting point and shoot, the extra weight seems decent if get better shots.

[@professionalpotato4764]

Personally I use the lens hood all the time, regardless of the lens. You never know when someone might bump into your camera, or your camera might bump into something. For me, the lens hood acts as a "bumper".

[@kingweddingmedia]

Yeah I completely agree with you - particularly now that I've started doing more professional work involving people etc. I'm very fearful of getting a scratch to the front element if I don't have the hood on!

[@paultrussy]

Puzzled as to why you constantly refer to this as a beginner's lens? I've been a keen amateur since the mid 70s and I am considering this lens. Zoom lenses have always been a compromise, and moreso when packing such a huge zoom range into such a small cylinder, but acceptance of compromise doesn't necessarily equate to being a beginner? The constraint on most keen photographers of limited financial means surely is cost - we'd all love to own pro gear (and preferably have someone carry it for us - that used to be my wife lol). Peace :)

[@kingweddingmedia]

Paul Truswell perhaps the way I’ve spoken is in this is a little misleading - what I mean is for someone who is completely new to photography and may not know what area they might like most (not meaning you have to specialise in one area) this could be a great option as the wide range allows a lot of different types of photography to be experimented with, all in one lens. I totally agree with you on the benefits of zoom lenses and how they could be for any level. They won’t have the sharpness of a prime, but certainly trump primes for their versatility!

[@jay6815]

Is this lens better than the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens? What is the difference? Thanks! Nice video!

[@kingweddingmedia]

Blitz Trader thanks mate! I have never used the 3.5-6.3 so can’t say for sure if this one is worth the extra money. The difference is the cheaper one won’t let as much light in when you’re fully zoomed in. This will mean you’ll need to put your ISO higher in order to get a fast enough shutter to freeze whatever it is you’re shooting. If your ISO is higher you’re going to get more noise/grain in your picture which just makes the picture look poor in my opinion. My thought process was I didn’t want to get the cheaper on and possibly find myself thinking “I wish I’d just paid the extra for the 3.5-5.6”. Hope that helps! I do love the range this lens gives - I haven’t taken it off the camera since buying it!

[@jay6815]

Simon King PPT thanks for the thoughtful reply!! I was able to get the 5.6 for $100 more than the 6.3 on eBay brand new so I think I’ll get this one!! Thanks for you’re video once again!

[@kingweddingmedia]

Blitz Trader excellent! At only 100 more I think that's a no brainer! I was out snapping some shots with mine again today, it's so versatile - you'll love it!

[@crxracer805]

Blitz Trader I had that Nikon 18-300 f3.5-5.6. It's a crappy POS. I can't imagine how much worse the f3.5-f6.3 must be. Picture quality is very poor, pictures aren't very sharp, there is so much glass and elements in that 18-300 f3.5-5.6 that it makes swiss cheese out of the light going into the lens. If you want a quality zoom that produces FAR better pictures, I highly recommend the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. That aperture is constant at f2.8 and the lens is excellent in low light and produces sharp pictures.

[@КонстантинСергеевич-ш6с]

thnx man