compare 18-300 vs 28-300
1494447
From what I see on Nikon's website, the 28-300 is a FX lens while the 18-300 is a DX lens. If you have a FX (full frame size sensor like D3, D600, D800) camera, you should buy the 28-300. You'd have to use the camera in crop mode if you mounted the 18-300. If you have a DX camera (D3100, D5200, D7100), you should buy the 18-300.
1494448
the 28-300 is a full frame lens. It's bigger, heavier and more expensive. Most reviews indicate that the picture quality is almost the same. Why would you want it unless you have a full frame camera?
1695328
Technically it is an 18-35. The camera crop sensor changes the perspective not the actual lens.
1409496
I believe the 3000 replaces the 300. They have about the same rpm range. The 3000 has a newer design, probably some features I can't really think of right not but mostly the same
1466618
Sure looks the same except the 300 comes with a travel case and is more expensive.
1542987
75-300mm IS is the older version and it has been around ways back. The 70-300mm IS is the newest version which has newer technology building in. I had both of them. the 70-300mm seems like having better auto focus on my rebel xt than the older version. I guess that justified the $200 difference.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
150329
Stay with the 200. Vignette is minimal to none and the clarity of the 18-200 is very impressive. Clear and sharp edge to edge(this impressed me the most.) You wont miss the 300 and you can take the money savings and apply to another lens.
1108703
The 300 can go about 3 hours on a charge with the full "steady" headlight. The 420 can only go 1 hour. It's brighter, but cannot go as far if you intend to have it on full output. The 300 makes more practical sense to me and is already bright. Unless you are night mountain biking, go with the 300.
305765
I generally use prime lens so, perhaps, I am not the best person to ask. With this said, the 28 f1.8 is excellent optically. On a D800E, the 100% view is tack sharp (assuming good shooting technique). You print excellent quality 17 16 by 20 or so. I haven't tested beyond that. The rendering is also very good. Hard to believe that the 28 - 300 would be an equal.
1253004
I have the exact same question. Please do post your findings. I am confused too. Apparently 18-200 is supposed to have larger zoom but I want to make sure that the quality of 18-200 matches to 18-135 at the least upto 135 mm. If so i will go with 18-200 for sure.
1809711
since the aperture (f) is the same for both, the difference is the zoom. the 75 starts magnified more and can zoom in more than a 50-250. so 75-300 starts closer to the object and ends farther
1927592
I have the 18-135 and I love it. I've not used the 18-55 so I'm not sure about the quality being the same.
1762796
I had the 18-250 non stabilized. I sold it to a friend. I am in my mid 70s and need the IS to help me get sharp pictures. I see no reason why you need the 16-300. Enjoy it.
2189792
I have the 18.5 and 22.5 for my family of four. The 18 will serve you better just in case you need to load it up with food. Charcoal consumption on the 14.5 and 18.5 will be very similar. Always better to have too much room than not enough.
369533
The 18-55 is a lot sharper than 18-135. I just bought the 18-200 VR from www.pcnation.com, was in stock and was delivered yesterday! Have not tried it yet.
256621
I don't know about the 18-250......a wider angle and a shorter telephoto. I have the 28-300 and have never needed a wider setting. Sigma makes a great product, you will be happy.
2146405
30 is weaker than 40.I should have looked in here first; I would have seen it was answered already! ;-p