Looks like Nikon 18-300mm 3.5-5.6 VR DX is on the way

[pRICE cUBE]

My speculation, it will perform similarly to the Tamron 18-270mm PSD VR and cost twice as much. I feel my 18-270 is superior to the nikon 18-200mm vr I used to have and the Nikon was more expensive while having less range.

No realease date, just the leaked image. My guess is it will be out within 6 months along with the D300s replacement.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/26/nikon-...rope.aspx/

[OWC Jamie]

Just twice as much ? :-)
(29 ounces )


You seem to really have liked that Tamron.
If you were replacing a 18-135 non-VR ( 14 ounces ) kit lens that's acting up, would you pick that (Tamron)( 16 ounces) over Nikon's 18-105 VR ( 15 ounces) ?
400 vs 600 $$
Except for price point, I don't ( want to ? ) understand 18-55 for a kit lens.

[pRICE cUBE]

billb wrote:
Just twice as much ? :-)
(29 ounces )


You seem to really have liked that Tamron.
If you were replacing a 18-135 non-VR ( 14 ounces ) kit lens that's acting up, would you pick that (Tamron)( 16 ounces) over Nikon's 18-105 VR ( 15 ounces) ?
400 vs 600 $$
Except for price point, I don't ( want to ? ) understand 18-55 for a kit lens.

I used to use the 18-135mm, while sharp, the plastic mount warped and caused all sorts of issues.

I would pick the 18-270mm because I like having more telephoto reach for my everyday use. I don't find it to be too bulky but then again I am usually using larger lenses so the 18-270 is relatively light and compact.

WIth the 6 yr warranty, VC=VR, PZD=SWM, good build quality for the price, I really see no reason to get the Nikon version of any all in one lens.

Getting the 18-270 has been really nice for all around shooting. Sometimes that extra reach is just really nice to have.

[Billybob]

I suspect that your 18-135mm was much like my 18-105. I got some excellent shots with it, but for the most part it was blah. Then it, literally, fell apart on me.

I'm a bit leery of these super zooms. They seem to be excellent over part of their range, good over another part, and so-so over the rest.

I was disappointed with Nikon's 28-300, which made too many compromises for my tastes, so I have doubts that Nikon can pull this one off.

Nikon is doing amazing things updating primes and shorter-range zooms (e.g., the 16-35mm comes to mind).

As for consumer-level super zooms, I'll wait and see.

pRICE cUBE wrote:
[quote=billb]
Just twice as much ? :-)
(29 ounces )


You seem to really have liked that Tamron.
If you were replacing a 18-135 non-VR ( 14 ounces ) kit lens that's acting up, would you pick that (Tamron)( 16 ounces) over Nikon's 18-105 VR ( 15 ounces) ?
400 vs 600 $$
Except for price point, I don't ( want to ? ) understand 18-55 for a kit lens.

I used to use the 18-135mm, while sharp, the plastic mount warped and caused all sorts of issues.

I would pick the 18-270mm because I like having more telephoto reach for my everyday use. I don't find it to be too bulky but then again I am usually using larger lenses so the 18-270 is relatively light and compact.

WIth the 6 yr warranty, VC=VR, PZD=SWM, good build quality for the price, I really see no reason to get the Nikon version of any all in one lens.

Getting the 18-270 has been really nice for all around shooting. Sometimes that extra reach is just really nice to have.

[pRICE cUBE]

I would avoid anything Nikon with a plastic mount. They should really be ashamed of themselves.

I feel like the Tamron feels sturdier than the 18-105mm and 18-135mm. It also has a metal mount, distance scale and optical stabilizer. You can get the non silent motor version for less than the PZD version.

I don't expect miracles from this Nikon 18-300mm, if it was too good, it would reduce the need for people to step up to other lenses.

[wowzer]

I have owned all three lenses, the Nikon 18-200, sigma 18-200 OS, and nikon 18-105 VR. I gave the nikon 18-200 to my sister. It's a heftier lens and takes decent images, but I think it's softer at 200 mm than the Sigma. I currently have the 18-105 vr and sigma 18-200 OS. Both are reasonable performers.

The 18-105 VR is a lighter lens..not bad, but I never use it anymore, as I have the Sigma 18-200. I bought the sigma over the Tamron, despite the fact that VC is better than OS...my reason was simple, the 18-200 was a lot less. I believe I bought the 18-200 for about $299 when it was on sale a while back.

Overall, I'd say that all of these lenses are about the same build quality...with the Sigma and Nikon 18-200 being slightly better (but heavier), but older Nikon units suffer from lens creep (the newer ones have lens locks like the Sigma). The sigma does a decent job, despite being slow at 200mm (f6.3)...with the newer sensors and high ISO capability, it almost doesn't matter anymore. I've found that the sigma 18-200 takes better quality of pictures at 200mm than the nikon.

I was surprised to find out that the 18-105 almost gets as much reach as the 18-200 lenses...when you focus on objects that are closer than infinity, the superzoom lenses lose some reach. Thus, the FOV for a superzoom at 200mm wont be comparable to a prime lens (hope I'm saying it right). At infinity, the superzooms will approach 200mm...but usually that's not very useful. Another nice thing about the 18-105 VR is the weight...nice and light is useful sometimes.

my 2 cents worth...

[pRICE cUBE]

Yeah, the 18-105 in the used market goes for way more than it should. I have no idea why.

Nikon all in ones are overpriced and typically outperformed by 3rd party lenses. You get a 6 year wty. with the Tamron lenses.

I had the 18-105, 18-135 and 18-200mm from Nikon and I was unimpressed by all 3. The plastic mount on the 18-135 was shabby. Glad I got they for below market rate off c-list. Sold all 3 for a profit for people willing to overpay for the Nikon name.