< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

This is the new Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G VR ED DX lens

Nikon 18-300mm f:3.5-6.3 lens
This is the first picture of the new Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DX lens I reported last week. For comparison, here is a picture of the current Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G DX model (830 g/29 oz vs. 550 g/20 oz for the new version):

Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-f3.5-5.6G-ED-VR

The filter size of the new lens will be 67mm.

Image via Digicame-info

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • phosgene

    OMG DROOOLLLL

    • fjfjjj

      Meh… Waiting for 17-420mm f/3.8-7.1 VR ED-IF NANO with adapter to put on my Digital Rebel.

      • kotozafy

        Not slow enough IMO

  • Kynikos

    Be still, my beating heart!

  • Bob

    Oh yay, just what DX shooters need, ANOTHER slow superzoom.
    Thank god Sigma is still making good DX lenses since Nikon has apparently decided that DX shooters will only ever need slow superzooms.

    • Irie

      Well dont you think the only DX zoom lens someone needs is the 17-55 2.8? For everything else you can take some good FX lenses! I think this kind of zooms are never a serious choices, or…?

      • http://500px.com/yoan_mitov/ Yoan

        How about a 11-16/2.8 or 50-150/2.8 type of lenses? Aren’t they serious?

        • kotozafy

          These serious glasses aready exist.
          Nikon has to fill the non-serious gap.
          I don’t think the existing 50-150/2.8 from S…ma sells very well.

          • leo tam

            It would if it was a Nikon

    • Eric Calabros

      actually they want us to conclude DX is for soccer moms, so for serious photography get into crowded-by-other-desperate-dx-users elevator and press the FX button.

  • herpderp

    I’m so excited. yay.

  • nwcs

    No distance scale, not even a pretense of a depth of field gauge. Definitely intended for those who don’t know their camera and keep it in automatic.

    Smaller is good, though. Less weighty will help. I wonder what was sacrificed for that weight though? They did simplify the A/M M switch which always seemed to confuse people I ran across. A/M is simpler. Now does that mean it has no autofocus override?

    • Eric Calabros

      I bet many of this lens buyers have no clue what are you talkin about

      • nwcs

        Like I said, intended for those who don’t know their camera and keep it in automatic. Makes me think nikon would have a bigger success by making a camera without many options for bare bottom pricing. Scene mode only, interchangeable lenses, image review, no menus to navigate. $299. A D1000.

        • LovesTech

          Why all the hate for automatic mode. Nikon engineers are pretty smart cookies, so why not try taking advantage of their collective decades of education and expertise.

          • nwcs

            Why do you think I was hating? I was saying that Nikon would likely have a big success by *simplifying* a camera for those who want simple by eliminating the things that confuse. Just like a point and shoot camera but with better sensor and changeable lenses.

    • kotozafy

      I myself use more manual glasses than autofocus ones, but I confess I’ve never understood why and how distance scales and dof gauge are used !! (My bag content : 20mm ai-s, 24mm ai-s, micro 55mm ai-s, 135m ai-s, 180mm ai-s, 300mm ai-s, AF-s 24-85mm VR, sigma 35mm 1.4 Art)

      • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

        Even if your lens has good DoF markings (and an infra-red focus point to be really old school) this is only approximate (and hyperfocal distance depends on resolution, so it’s not going to be an accurate guide no matter what).

        • kotozafy

          So why do so many people want them back on modern lenses ? Here above one reader says a lens wihtout those markings (that I never use) are “Definitely intended for those who don’t know their camera and keep it in automatic” !

          • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

            The same person seems not to be aware of Nikon’s zany M/A / A/M / A labeling conventions which have been confusing users for twenty years or so now.

            • nwcs

              Actually I’ve seen a lot of their confusing ones. If you actually read what I said I complimented Nikon on simplifying it and wondered if it also meant autofocus manual override was present or not. You’re reading far too much into my statement that isn’t there.

            • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

              It’s pretty clearly going to be the same as every other recent AF-S lens — AF with instant override and manual.

            • nwcs

              Except that there are AF-S lenses out there for consumers that don’t have the AF override. For example, the 55-200. The current 18-300 has override but it’s not a guarantee it’ll be in the next revision.

            • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

              You’re right — and the nomenclature is the same as on the 55-200mm, so I expect you’re right that the 18-300mm will not allow instant override.

      • bz

        you should try it out on your 20mm, the purpose is that you don’t have to focus. The markings are color coded to the aperture you’re using. Line up the middle of the infinity symbol with the color hash mark on the left and look at the same color mark on the other side and read the distance in meters or feet. Now everything from that distance to infinity will be in focus. Make sure your subject is farther away than that number and it’s in focus.

        • kotozafy

          Thank you for the tip!

      • nwcs

        I was confused for a time on them, too. Then one day they clicked and it really is a lot simpler to zone focus when you need to.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      Plenty of enthusiast-targeted lenses have no hint of DoF scales these days. The easiest way to judge DoF in the digital world is to make the shot and look at the result. Sure, some folk know how to use these things, but it’s a bit like complaining that your D800 doesn’t have a little frame to hold the end of your film box in.

      • MyrddinWilt

        Or remember them from the f-stop and focal length like ‘real photographers’ would.

        If people are going to use product announcements are an opportunity to sneer…

    • MyrddinWilt

      Well some people don’t know photography and some people don’t know how to behave politely. Guess which one makes me think less of someone.

      This wang-waving and sneering about people is really pathetic. Every time there is a DX or CX product announced there are people who use it as an excuse to boast about their gold band gear. Such tedious folk.

      • nwcs

        So what was I saying that fits your characterization? I stated facts (based on picture) and a target audience. Even complimented aspects of the lens. Chill dude.

        • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

          “Definitely intended for those who don’t know their camera and keep it in automatic.” sure reads like sneering to me.

          • nwcs

            Sounds like a motivated reading to me. I was just being succinct.

            • KnightPhoto

              I thought it was a good post, pointed out some unique things, such as the less confusing A/M dial etc.

    • neonspark

      ha ha. distance scale ha ha ha. boy are you in the wrong century. ha ha ha.

      • nwcs

        You know, they are useful for some people…

    • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

      I haven’t used a distance scale since college. Their entire existence is pretense! Digital gives better tools than the need for something so inaccurate.

      • nwcs

        Digital is great, no question, but there is a use for analog and a use for things like distance scales. If nothing else, it gives you a quick idea of what you can expect for DOF without using batteries at a glance.

        • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

          …with all the ED glass (and equivalents) in lenses, I have to disagree. Distance scales are useless in most modern lenses. They exist because professionals who don’t know better insist on them.

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      I think they might have saved 0.1g by moving the discrete VR label onto the generic name plate.

  • http://www.gradyphoto.com/ Pete Grady

    Zzzzzzzz. Where’s my 24mm f/1.8 DX? My 14mm f/2 DX? My 70mm f/1.4DX?

    • Eric Calabros

      why you need those bizarre focal length lenses? based on our market research, you need 300m f/6.3

      • BJ

        Since when were 35mm and 105mm equivalent lenses bizarre?

      • SunnysideLooker

        You need 300 f/6.3 when shooting your kids in full sunlight when they’re playing sports. The depth of field at that focal length is pretty thin, so you need all the f-stop you can get.

    • kotozafy

      Just earn a fistful of $$$$ and pick a 24mm 1.4 FX + 14mm 2.8 FX + 85mm 1.4 FX. I’ve heard they are all excellent.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      Let’s suppose Nikon sold a 70mm f1.4 DX. Chances are it would be as expensive — or more expensive — than the 85mm f1.4 FX (because it won’t sell well). Now suppose I, an enthusiast, am trying to pick a short telephoto lens for my D8300. Do I buy the DX lens which won’t work on the FX body I assume I either also have or plan to get?

      I think it would be nice to see some action at the wide end (that being said, what’s wrong with the 10-24mm?)

    • neonspark

      is it not clear DX is for the soccer mom zoon by now? why are you waiting and get FX glass.

    • Deep_Lurker

      I’m not sure what would be gained wrt reduced price & weight if a 70mm f/1.4 were made DX instead of FX. And it would likely cost an arm and a leg, and so not do so well.

      What I’d like is a 70mm f/1.8, either DX or FX, coming in at (or below) the price of the 85mm f/1.8. Or a 70mm f/2 DX macro.

      Or Nikon could come out with a 58mm f/1.8 FX with the same reduced price that the 85mm f/1.8 has over the 85mm & 58mm f/1.4 lenses. Sure, it would be a “use an FX lens on a DX body” choice, but at that focal length, who cares?

    • leo tam

      Sadly both Canon and Nikon make this hard… There’s always Fuji X series…

  • Carlos Silva

    Everybody knows that DX users has few lenses options. I really can’t understant why Nikon makes this model when the shoters needs fast mid range zoom lenses. We are limited to 18-105, 16-85 and 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 dark lenses. A good lens could be 16-60 2.8 or 17-70 2.8. The new 24Mp sensors requires better optical quality than current ones.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      Nikon sells a 17-55mm f2.8 ($1400 — imagine the cost of the prospective 16-60mm f2.8 if you will). If you want it, buy it. The fact that almost no-one does buy it probably sends a signal to Nikon that devoting R&D and production resources to lenses like it is probably not a Good Idea.

      • BJ

        Coming from a 17-55 2.8 owner (bought used) I think the reason nobody buys it is because both Tamron and Sigma offer nearly as good to equally good 17-50 2.8′s, with stabilization, for half the price.

        • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

          Right. The new 18-35mm f1.8 from Sigma totally spanks it too. The point is Nikon made one, it’s there, buy it or not. Nikon clearly decides what lenses to make based on what lenses it expects to sell. They clearly sell a ton of superzooms, as evinced by the ridiculous number of different superzooms they’ve released. They clearly don’t sell a lot of fast DX primes.

          Everyone who has M43 “fast” prime envy needs to remember that an f1.8 M43 lens is an f2.7 DX lens, and an f3.6 FX lens for purposes of sweet, sweet bokeh (because we need to have blurry photos, right?).

      • Carlos Silva

        I have been waited Nikon atack against the good lenses from Sigma, Tamrom, but it doesn’t happened! Nikon makes good lenses for 2 ou 3 times the cost of them. I have no other alternative today than buy third party lenses… See that the other brands are becoming better and bettter in IQ.

      • iamlucky13

        Yep, the 17-55 could definitely use an update, and not just for VR. When it was released, the D1 and D100 users needed a wide angle lens equal to their $2000+ 6 MP cameras.

        But linear sensor resolution has fully doubled since 2003, so what looked amazing in 2003 looks like a slightly faster, more expensive kit lens now. Hence, the 17-55 sells used for half its MSRP, which is a very low ratio for an in-production pro-level zoom.

        Of course, Nikon is pushing all the more serious shooters towards FX, and as you said, the 17-55 probably is seeing very low sales that discourage Nikon from taking on a redesign.

        But if a D9300 really does appear, an improved 17-55 F/2.8 would be an ideal companion.

        Personally though, my budget is step down from that, and I’m hoping the rumored 16-85 F/4 shows up. With as popular as the D7XXX series is, I can’t imagine such a lens wouldn’t be a huge success.

        • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

          I really think Nikon knows its users pretty well and knows that pro DX users aren’t going to upgrade to a new DX body. I’m with you — I love the 16-85, and would definitely consider the update (although like a lot of enthusiasts, I have an FX body too)

        • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

          I’m a big fan of the 16-85 (and really constant aperture wouldn’t add much). The problem Nikon faces in DX is that the enthusiast market will simply buy lenses that represent good value and are well-reviewed. If Nikon were to release a new 17-55 f2.8 it would be competing for the enthusiasts who won’t buy a slow zoom AND won’t simply buy the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. Similarly, if Nikon were to actually release some solid ultra-wide DX lenses they’d be competing against Rokinon’s well-regarded 14mm (FX) and Tokina’s well-regarded 11-16mm f2.8.

          I think Nikon’s decisions in DX mostly make commercial sense (the big WTF is why so long on a D300s replacement? — that’s simply a license to print money as far as I can tell).

    • Deep_Lurker

      The problem with f/2.8 zooms is that Nikon needs to keep the costs down with it’s DX lens offerings. People are often DX shooters because they don’t want to pay FX prices, and those who are willing to pay FX prices have an eye toward getting an FX body someday – so they’ll want to buy FX zooms, instead.

      What’s needed from Nikon is an f/4 or f/2.8-4 midrange zoom. Something like a 16-85mm f/4, or a 18-70mm f/2.8-4

      Or Nikon could do something off-the-wall like bringing back the 35-70mm f/2.8D. (Either as a straight replica of the old lens, or as a refreshed design.) Keep the price less than $800, and market it to Df users who want a classic “retro” zoom to go with their “retro” Df, and to DX users (or at least those who have a screwdrive DX body) who want a cheap but robust f/2.8 zoom.

      • Carlos Silva

        Nikon give very few options to their DX customers… Try to choose some lenses and you will find only FX models! The 17-55 2.8 is not the best of market and is too expensive. Want sell to us? Make good lenses with fair prices.

        • Deep_Lurker

          The 17-55mm f/2.8 is still cheaper than Nikon’s 24-70mm f/2.8 for FX.

          I agree that Nikon has some big holes in its DX lineup. The quibble is over how to best fill them.

  • Colfer

    I do not understand why Nikon built a lot of lens like that for Dx and not one good lens: 30 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4 to use smaller and lighter lens for the people who opted for DX format. And I am sure they will sell a lot.

    • kotozafy

      I think you will be the one and only one who will buy such DX lenses, should they ever be made. They will be about the same price as the FX versions, not much lighter, and over all without the possibility to be mounted on an FX body if you have one as primary body or want to switch in the future. Ultra-wide primes would make IMHO more sens for DX bodies.

      • click

        This Lens is typical for Tamron and Sigma. And I think a lot of consumers don’t care for that 1/3 stop more. The main thing is that the lens is small and not so heavy. Especally for holiday photos.

        It seems Tamron and Sigma are selling a lot of this kind of lenses, so Nikon wants also a slice of the cake.

        • kotozafy

          Agree with you, but I think your misread what I said. I was talking about super-fast DX primes the other reader above wants, which for me don’t make any sense. (Please read the full posts) Yes slow super-zooms do make sens. We don’t want one but millions of other respectable consumers do.

  • nikclick

    If D9300 is a mirroless , this lens makes sense @ of price & weight reduction. May be i has VRIII !!!

    • kotozafy

      I still bet the D9300 will be mirroless and this will be its kit lens.

      • Patrick O’Connor

        I can’t believe Nikon would give a mirrorless camera (regardless of sensor size) a DX(X(X(X))) designation.

        • kotozafy

          Maybe a DY(Y(Y(Y))) ? :)

          • Patrick O’Connor

            Those would be the “men only” models… ;-)

          • fjfjjj

            DZZZzzzzzzz…………

      • umeshrw

        You must have a pretty reliable source to bet on it.

        • Patrick O’Connor

          I’m guessing it was hyperbole. Otherwise, I’d be very tempted to put a few hundred down.

        • kotozafy

          I don’t have any source. I hope it will be a high end DX DSLR, but these days we have some disapointing annoucements. So to avoid another dissapointment, I take the worst hypothesis.
          Still I think we are now in a transitionnal period. Mirrorless is certainly the future of photography. It’s a matter of time and progress in technology. Prisms are heavy and pricey, mirror is speed limiting, and our engeneers will find one day a satisfactory solution to drop those cumbersome, 70 year old parts.
          But who never begin never make progress. It’s more than time to begin to make high end mirroless cameras. Maybe they won’t sell well. Electric cars don’t sell well either today.

          • umeshrw

            What you say and wish is certainly right. However I was commenting on your confidence about 9300 being mirrorless.

  • FredBear

    Yay! I have to get one.
    I have a 67mm filter waiting in anticipation of this lens!

  • bob

    6.3?

    Tamron has an upcoming lens which has a 16-300 zoom

    I wonder which is better in terms of price,size quality and performance

    • desmo

      my guess is the optical quality of the Nikon will be better,
      but
      for what this lens is used for,
      a walk around single lens,
      the 16mm vs 18mm( 24 vs 28 inFX or 35mm format)
      is huge,
      and will make the Tamron much more useful.

  • zorwick

    This lens is not for most of the people here. I think, most of the buyers of cheap Nikon cameras, does not know more, then they need a big zoom range, light and cheap lens. And this is it! Yes for me/for us it might be weird, that on this lens there is no distance scale, the range is same as many other lenses.
    I guess when companies are pushed to come out in every year with a new model, well this is what they give. Those who buy better/semi pro/pro lenses for a lifetime, dont care about what Nikon makes every year for the newest D3X00 KIT cameras.
    I suggest, after reading it, just step over on this article. Even great manufactures like Nikon works looking at they sales numbers and make what people buy and cheap to produce.

  • Zograf

    The old one looks much better build, it seems to me this new one is cheaply made to be a kit lens. But such kind of zoom range is only suitable for a kit anyway. I might be wrong of course…

    • catinhat

      If this is intended for the rumored D9300 kit, I worry that D9300 may not turn out what some have imagined.

  • Morris

    no thanks

  • SunnySideLooker

    I’m sure it’s a mediocre 18-300, but I bet it’s an awesome 24-200 when shot at middle apertures. It’s all about working around the shortcomings of the lens rather than the other way around. And as a bonus Nikon is usually pretty OK with the 18mm end of these kinds of zooms. If I stick with APS-C, I may buy one of these.

  • Zesty

    About as exciting as poop in a bag…..

  • Mr_Miyagi

    I owned the current 18-300mm zoom lens, which I bought to use with my D7000 when traveling. It was a poor performer at the telephoto end and just mediocre at the wide angle end so I returned it. Nikon needs to do better the second time around.

    • Carlos Silva

      Yes. It is a very long range to keep quality in good levels! I think this new model won’t be so different.

  • click

    6.3? I am supprised. I always thought this belongs to Sigma or Tamron.

    • AM I Am

      First people say that Nikon should now follow the steps of Sigma. Nikon listens, follows suit, and now people complain.

      • Pelika

        No one told them to build a 6.3 lens! This is a piece of crap. Nikon have to be very careful with that sort of amateur glass. Of course people will buy this for it’s enormous focal length variability at a relatively low price but they all will be disappointed when seeing the results.Which leaves unsatisfied customers and destroys Nikon reputation.

        • Nikon User

          It will not be low price.

          Look at how much they charge for the new kit lens of D3300.

        • KnightPhoto

          I think others have posted these people won’t be able to tell a difference, e.g. the full-auto crowd.

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          As much as I wouldn’t even let my five year old daughter near this lens on her D50, I don’t think Nikon has to be any more careful with this lens than with any other.

  • Aldo

    I’ll wait for the 18-600mm f/ 8-16

    • kotozafy

      Your coffee will still be warm when it will be announced.

  • I AM PLUMBING THE DEPTHS

    No focus distance scale.
    How much further can Nikon sink?

    • desmo

      whens the last time the type of consumer that will use this type of lens used a focus distance scale??
      they rarely if ever use manual focus

  • toothless serpent

    Looks like more plastic, less weight but more dollars.

  • malchick743

    Hopeless lens, lighter means cheaper components, perhaps more plastic lens elements, f/6.3 at tele give us a break……

    Perhaps Nikon should put more time improving its 18-200 DX instead

  • Ken Shotwell

    So do they discontinue the old one or sell them alongside each other?

  • desmo

    make it a 15 or 16 to 200 would’ve been more useful

    • Carlos Silva

      The old 18-200 is not suitable with the new DX 24Mp sensors, they require more optical quality. I agree with you, better to make a brand new 16-200. (but they launch one 18-140mm…)

  • zorwick

    Flip Flopwell already anounced that this the best lens ever:D

  • Back to top