Nikon 18-200mm and 18-300mm DX lenses size comparison

I added some more images of the new lenses in yesterday's post. Above: a quick size comparison between the old 18-200mm and the new 18-300mm DX lenses. A detailed review of the new lenses will be coming in the next few weeks.

Images taken at Foto Hans Keuzekamp.

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

    ahah! its kinda Pirates of the Caribbean …

  • 18-300? Holy Pincushion batman!

  • Bare

    I would like to see 24-85 VR size comparison to 24-120 F4 VR and 24-70 2.8.

    • I’d like to see this 18-300 compared to the 28-300 FX which is also quite large.

      • Tom

        They are virtually the same size and weight.

        • PHB

          I would like to see them compared for performance over the 24-300 range. One of the lesser known secrets of Nikons DX lenses is that many of them perform passably on FX at the upper end of their range. So The 10-24 makes a passable 14-24. If the same was true of the 18-300 it might well be a viable transition lens for people moving to a D600.

          At close to $1000, the 18-300 is hardly an entry price lens. I don’t think I am going to be getting one but it certainly has some uses.

          • neversink

            You are kidding???!!!!

    • nuno santacana

      I’d like to see the size comparison between 40mm pancake lens to the zoom 1200-1700mm f/5.6

      • Clever and Educated

        I wonder which one is bigger. I’d say it’s the 40mm because of it’s larger aperture. the 1200-1700 is a good light travel lens, and the best thing about it is that you don’t have to travel very far. In fact, you could take pictures of just about anything anywhere from your backyard. Awesomeness!!!!1!!one!!

        • BartyL


  • I’m sure it’s definitely a lot bigger. I wonder how the perspective of the top picture makes it look a WHOLE LOT bigger. Seems like a lot of lens for a smaller DX camera.

  • francisco

    extended and upright, with no lens creep! hallelujah nikon!

    • babola

      It’s because is too new and stiff.
      Give it few weeks give or take.

      • Calibrator

        If it behaves like my 18-200VR2 then it has no problems either fully retracted or extended.
        The part in between is a bigger problem for zoom creep, although it’s less critical since I dropped it… (it still works, though ;-))

      • francisco

        well, the creep was not big deal really, but still it is always better not having a terrible one, and in my book even the 18-200 VR2 had a terrible zoom creep… anyways, i sold it already! 🙂

  • Ken Elliott

    I have no need for one, but I can see the logic of this. The beginning dSLR user can buy a Nikon with 24MP and a 18-300mm lens. That’s a pretty amazing point-and-shoot. And they easily win the my-numbers-are-biger-than-your-numbers contest.

    • Urinating contest

      Till they meet someone with a D800 and a 200-400.

      • jetelinho

        🙂 🙂 🙂 very nice

      • When I walk in with my 200-400 and a D4 attached, people usually don’t even ask for my ID.

        • . . . come to think of it, I’m sure it’s my smile. 🙂

        • zingo

          Why should they…everyone knows Superman.

      • Rob

        200-400mm with 16 Mp vs 28-450mm with 24 Mp ,I can imagine the look on the photographers face as he tries to explain that his FX camera is better than the DX….

        • You forget (or perhaps aren’t aware) that the change in focal length measurement only applies to field of view, not magnification.

          You aren’t actually getting a 450mm lens, just a a 300mm w/ the field of view of a 450mm (you aren’t seeing your subject any closer than you would with a 300mm). Magnification of an FX and DX sensor are the same.

          Any many of us have switched to the D800, so that’s 36MP you are looking at on the FX end…

          an actual 400mm lens still wins 🙂

          Common mis-c0nception.

          • PHB

            Whats this ‘winning’ thing? Or is this all a dick size measuring contest?

            The DX-er has spent maybe $2000 for his gear and has a 24-450 mm equivalent focal length in a package about a third the weight of the D4 + 200-400 The camera and the lens both cost three times as much.

            A $12,000 camera plus lens that can double as a barbell should outperform a $2,000 rig.

            But the Nikon V1 with the 18-200 on has them both beat on size, weight and cost with remarkably little compromise in quality.

            The DX format is going to get squeezed out but that is because the CX format is so good, not because FX is dramatically better.

            • neversink

              Get real!!!! You obviously don’t care about IQ…. OY!!!!!

          • Rob

            Be nice to see some comparison shots of a D3200 at 266mm (on a 18-300) and a D800 at 400mm (on a 200-400). At high ISO the D3200 will suffer. Don’t forget when I multiply 18-300mm x 1.5 for the crop factor that Nikon made the lens to work with that crop factor. So your not using a smaller part of the lens your using all of it.

    • karl

      ..and should they attach this monster lens to a Nikon 1 camera, they would get a 48.6-810mm lens with f5.6 on the tele end !

      • Joseph

        I imagine the resolution on this superzoom when on a small-sensor camera is only slightly better than a coke bottle. But I will gladly eat my words.

        • Sebastian

          i like the idea of a coke bottle with an F-mount.

        • PHB

          The pictures from the 18-200 on the J1 are very good. My 85 f/1.4 is better, but the 18-200 is pretty effective.

          Since the whole point of using the 18-300 on CX would be to get reach, the combination probably compares pretty favorably with the type of compromises you would need to achieve the same with an F-mount camera.

          • neversink

            Get real people… You are talking about increasing reach on tiny sensors. You’d be better off shooting the same lens on an FX than on a V1. You will actually get more reach due to better cropping ability….
            Some folks….ARGGGHHHHHH

      • rgrieder

        Since you’re multiplying the focal length, also do the same for the aperture. So you get (full frame equivalent):
        49-810mm f/9.5-15.1

        Which isn’t supercool anymore, but I like the 810mm 😉

        • henri108

          Why multiply aperature, that will till be the same… And 300*2.7 is indeed a 810mm o:. would want that monster on a full frame!

          • Joe

            You can buy one from Sigma I think.

        • Arthur

          The aperture will stay the same smart ass. Or will the lens suddenly shrink and block light?

          (Your referring to the depth of field I presume, which will be an equivalent to 49-810mm f/9.6-15.1).

          • Crop is not Zoom

            The focal length will stay the same smart ass. Or will the lens suddenly grow and zoom more?

            (Your referring to the cropped angle of view I presume, which will be an equivalent to 49-810mm f/9.6-15.1).

            • karl

              NO ONE will buy a FT1 and the 18-300mm to control the depth of field – aperture is in this case important only for light transmission – and it’s absolutely irrelevant for the effect on DOF.
              You don’t buy an ultrazoom for subject isolation, duh!

      • highlight
  • Nau

    holy smokes i didnt really like 18-200 for it size but this is just epic monster lens

  • Sebastian

    At first I thought the 18-300 is a reasonable upgrade for my 18-200 as a general purpose snapshot lens. But it’s not. It’s just too heavy. The weight difference is huge.

  • Banned

    If you call that an upgrade I can only imagine the crap you’re shooting with now…

    • The Other Steve

      Well, since we all think with it, it goes without saying that it effects how/what we shoot as well.

    • Rev Brimstone

      Does it come with vaseline?

  • Witty

    How many more grams does the 18-300 weigh?

    • MichaelS

      565 vs 830

    • According to Nikons’ website, the weights are:

      18-200: 560 grams or 19.8 ozs

      18-300: 830 grams or 29.3 ozs (approx 48% more weight)

    • n/a

      1.5x 😀

      • Calibrator

        It doesn’t really look cropped, though…

  • Ole

    Knee-cone: please release the D600, so I have something to put the 24-85 onto! It won’t fit my Fuji X100 :0

    • me

      for the last time.

      it’s Nycon

      • Ole

        No, I am quite sure it is Knee-cone

        • Nee-kon. the letter “i” in Japanese is pronounce as an “ee”

          • Ole

            Thank you Shaskinka-san!

      • speakTHENAMEright

        If you cannot pronounce it properly , you can call it Nycon but don’t think that you are saying it right.

      • kombi

        Since when, Bart Simpson?

      • In Japanese it is NEE-Kone (with a very short “o”)

        In English, it is naɪkɒn (Ny-con) (l0ng “I”).

        Different country, different dialects.

        Call Nikon Professional services at 1 800 NIKON US and see how they pronounce it (Ny con).

        That should end this debate.

        • umeshrw

          It’s nikon US site with us training. Thats why most probably.
          Also dialects rule apply in general and not to names.
          How would you like it Bobe Culay………

    • Gitzo

      Well you kinda should have thought about that before, shouldn’t you?


  • aznpoet

    Size be damned.
    How about a re-fresh of 24-120mm with f/2.8 ?

    • The barrel distortion and pin cushioning would be horrible. Physics come into play here – and for the price it would cost, I wouldn’t want to be making that many corrections in post.

      • Arthur

        Oh really, physics come into play here? Damn, why are physics not present in other cases? 🙁

        • Physics are always present, but they do not ‘come into play’ as in ‘negatively affect your outcome’.

          In the case of this type of lens build they would negatively affect your outcome.

          One doesn’t typically mention air (thought its always there), unless there is something wrong with it.

  • FX DX

    Grow you lens by 3 inches. Our secret formula will increase your lens size and give you the confidence you want. Just send us your 18-200 with $500 and in a week you will get your lens back with longer focal length.

    • Don

      LOL. POTD!

  • JJ

    The size of this beast defeats the whole purpose of a superzoom. What happened to travelling light? The balance on a D3200 would be absolutely horrible so I don’t see it as an option for P&S upgraders. I would go for the new Sigma 18-250 if I was in the market for a superzoom.

    This beast weighs more than 18-55 + 55-300 vr together and the price is much higher. IQ is probably worse. This lens better have much better AF performance than the ones I mentioned otherwise I see absolutely no reason to buy it. You will need a D300 body to get a decent balance with this lens.

    • Bob

      People with D300 usually know better, this is still a point’n’shooter upgrade lens. People will just come up with new dslr holding techniques for D3200 + 18-300 combination. Or will just screw a beanbag in the tripod socket for balance.

      • JJ

        The only problem is that most D3200 shooters never use bean bags or tripods. They will likely just leave the lens hanging in the lens mount until it breaks…

      • Too bad there isn’t a monopod mount option . . . is there?

      • James

        Well, holding a D7000 + 70-200 is also a bit weird, but I see absolutely no problems in doing that. I don’t see why this would be different.

        I also would expect the 18-300 to have decent picture quality – something above the threshold that the small and light Sigma’s and Tamron’s aren’t reaching.

        • JJ

          The difference is that the 70-200 is not a lens you have on all the time as a walk around lens on a D7000. And it is a lens with a tripod mount. Also this combo is for people who know what they are doing…

          Try mounting D3200 with this lens on a tripod, again balance will be horrible and the head will likely bend on a D3200 owners tripod…

          • Tags

            Not ALL D3200 owners are mindless and use their slr as a p&s… I use mine for professional landscape, street, and even portraiture. The camera produces incredible files and is so small and light that it is always with me. I’ve used 17-55, 70-200, and various primes and they all have worked fabulously. Honestly I need another camera for about 5% of the shots I would ever take, and those mostly involve dim churches where precise autofocus with tele lenses is crucial.

            • JJ

              Of course there are exception, I have a D3100 as a light weight back up, but we are obviously not the main target group for this lens or this camera.

              I just think a lens that almost weighs one kilo defeats the whole purpose of a super zoom, especially since it mainly appeals to amateurs with small cameras. I think the Sigma will actually be a more interesting lens. HSM often matches AF-S and with a slightly shorter focal length they can probably match the IQ of the Nikon. And that with a much more portable weight, more affordable price and better close up ability.

            • don

              I’m seriously contemplating the d3200 to be used exclusively as my studio camera, in lieu of the d800.

              It will complement my d3s, aka “The Lord of Darkness,” used for high ISO field work.

              Sounds crazy, but it’s making much better sense for me cost-wise.

          • AM

            That’s why the 70-200mm has its own tripod mount, so you don’t have to use the body’s tripod mount.

            • James

              It does, but to be honest, with VR, I rarely see the need to use it. Especially if walking around a lot I don’t have patience to carry a tripod – and it hasn’t ever been a problem.

          • downhillschrott

            I often have the 80-200 2.8 or 28-300 5.6 often attached the whole day on my D700. So I see no reason, why the 18-300 lens should not work on a D3200. I also have no problem with mounting the D700 with the 28-300 5.6 lens on a tripod, even with a small ballhead.
            Sure, you have to know your tools and their shortcomings, but its not a problem or impossible at all.
            Every tool is a compromise. If you want to be light, P&S is an option but a compromise in quality. If you want the perfect quality 4×5 is a compromise in weight. 😉

    • iamlucky13

      Weight and dimensions are very close to the 70-300 VR.

      The 70-300 feels fine to hand-hold on a D3200 size body. Nose heavy, for sure, but you get used to that. More weight on the left hand, less weight on the right hand.

      It’s difficult to manage on a tripod, however.

      Not that is has any appeal to me. I’ll take image quality over convenience.

      The MTF chart Nikon published is surprisingly good in the center, and even though it falls off quickly away from the center still looks ok in the corners, but that’s only considering resolution wide open and at 18 and 300mm. I expect it won’t improve much stopping down, and have lots of distortion to deal with.

      There will be plenty of casual shooters who jump all over it, however, because bigger numbers are better in the consumer mindset.

      • Hom Thogan

        Whoa…is that a Commander Keen avatar? I just had a flashback to 1989!

  • Hunk

    Lots of people will by it just for the numbers.

    • Worminator

      One number, 830, might turn them off. If it doesn’t, perhaps 1098.95 will.

  • I will buy one lol.. This lens I was waiting for since last year!!

  • jorg

    that is a huge and heavy lens…

    18-300 vs 18-200
    830 gr – 560 gr
    77 mm – 72 mm
    12 cm – 9,6 cm

  • Ric

    it’ll impress the ladies.

  • BJ

    A true camera nerd post… show pictures of the lens but no pictures taken with the lens.

    • Sebastian

      we don’t care.
      we’re on a rant here, dude.

      let us go on for a while, then we’ll come off the soap box and talk about things like actual images and stuff.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    Oooh… Its SO massive! ESPECIALLY when its EXTENDED. Can I play with the focus ring?

  • Mike M

    I didn’t do any scientific tests, but I had access briefly to one of these at an airshow, there was no action on the field at the time (and I’m not sure this thing has the AF performance to do anything remotely close to serious airshow photography) but I shot across the parking lot a few times. I’m not gonna say it’s great, but it definitely didn’t look any worse than my old 70-300 IF-ED D (the last non-VR 70-300, not real great from 200-300 but acceptable). For a prosumer single lens solution, I was pretty impressed. If you’re looking to print the same 4x6s you would have with a film camera 20 years ago, it’s capabilities are staggering. If you’re looking to make art prints, keep shopping.

    • Tiger1050Rider

      It’s Farnborough next month.
      I’ll be there at the weekend up on Tweesledown hill with my 200-400 and my D800. Getting it tomorrow Yippee.

  • bigeater

    The whole reason you went with Nikon in the first place was their amazing lenses, right? So why the sudden doubting? It’s not like their engineers took stupid pills before they designed this lens.
    I loved my 18-200 and I’m betting this will be even better; the 18-200 was an awesome lens and when used with a tripod and/or good shooting discipline it produced some amazing images. There was a solidity to objects photographed with that lens that I don’t get from my nikon “pro” lenses. A lot of times—like with people—too much sharpness can be a distraction.

    • Sebastian

      I’m never worried about the Nikon ENGINEERS. I’m sure they did the best job they could, as they would if tasked to design a wide DX prime… for example.
      It’s the MARKETING people I’m worried about. They’re the ones who think this is just what we need.
      (well, who knows, maybe we do. We just don’t know yet.)

    • Magges

      Since you can pray as you want! the Nikon 18-200 is been lapped loose! believe me, I’ve tested both! my opinion, that’s the 18-300 have got even a higher resolution as the 24-300 FX 18-300 on my D300s! really, I’m not kidding!

  • Joaquim Prado

    I just received a e-mail from Kohs Camera that they have D800 in stock! I did not purcharge because I am now looking for the D800E and even if I did I am not able to receive for the next 4 weeks. Hopefully they will have the E version soon in a month. I was pretty surprised and glad they e-mail me back since I have sent almost a month ago.

  • Cris

    I personally own the 18-200 and 70-300
    ( non VR). With that kind of weight and size, no point in upgrading from 18-200 to 18-300. There isn’t much difference at that kind of zoom, the subject u are taking is only bigger by probably like ~10%. If only it’s 18-200 F2.8! or at least maybe F3.5 constant? Hah!

  • MatterOfTime

    I also would like to “upgrade” but I’ll wait for the new 10-1,000mm f/4.
    32 elements in 24 groups, 2,958 grams, 895 mm long, no zoom creep.

    — coming soon 🙂

  • Ben

    I would be happy if nikon could get some of the lenses they make already in stock.

  • JustMe

    It isn’t the size of your lens that matters, it is what you do with it.

    That’s What Ken Said….

    • Calibrator

      It’s not the length of the lens that matters, it’s the girth that does!

      • Worminator

        That’s actually sorta true!

      • Merco

        so…it’s not about the lenght of your lens, it’s not about your body…

        maybe is about WHERE you stick it

        • Vandyu

          So, which of you adolescents forgot this thread was about camera lenses? Geeze.

  • Zeb

    18-300mm should work great on a D400.

  • Magges

    hi guys, i have the 18-300 since saturday the 23.6.2012! And i tested its all functions on my Nikon D300s! I’m very very happy about it, of course it’s a little bit heavy, but in combination with the D300s with Batterygrip it’s perfect! The imagequality is amazing, and that’s the reason why i sold my 16-85 and 70-300!!! I’m realy happy now with my little traffle bag, cause i need only my 10-24, 18-300, and my 77mm filter-set for very good images for all different categorys of images! The 18-300 will also work perfectly with the new 24 MP Nikon Sensor! Now, the Nikon D400 can come!!!! 😉

    • Calibrator

      It’s OK, Trey Ratcliff — you can come out now!

    • MatterOfTime

      Good for you!

      BTW, how stable is all that scaffholding when you mount it on a tripod?

      • Magges

        First a fat praise to the whole Nikon team!Because Nikon managed a real good lens! Although there are much skeptiker, i maintain that this lens is a real high light! Handling is sharp, it don’t wobbles in the out zoom, at 300mm! It can be used very well on a tripod because it is so stable! not like the 70-300 obsolete!

    • FD

      I’ve got one ordered too and can’t wait to put it on my D300. I think it will be a nice fit. I’ve been wanting to get back to an all in one for years but just couldn’t pull the trigger on a 18-200 again.

      2 D300, 300 2.8. vrI, 80-200 AF-D 2.8, Tokina 11-16 2.8, 50G 1.4, 35G 1.8, 55-200 vr, 17-55 2.8… 1.7 teleconvert…, owned 16-85vr and 18-200vr… rented a bunch more…

      lusting for the D400….. which frankly is going to be unreal….

      • Magges

        Hey FD! Don’t give up all your hopes! The Nikon d400 will come quite sure this year yet! Because the Nikon D3200 is this top lens not worthy! 😉 The Nikon D3200 is much too easy to be a counterweight to the 18-300, and there are also many professionals that do not necessarily require FX!

  • T.I.M

    *** NIKON D800 ***

    I like to have my lens apertures in full steps (2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc..) so I set up my D800 with 1 full stop for the aperture.

    The problem is by doing that, when I do braketing I have only the option to use 1 full exposure stop, for example -1, 0, +1 (for 3 shoots)

    But the D800 exposure system is very acurate and I would like to have -0.5, 0, +0.5 (because 1 full stop give too much over/under exposed pictures)

    Anyone have the solution ?

    • umesh

      check b2 in settings.

      • T.I.M

        does not work, it change the aperture to half step, I hope Nikon will fix it on the next firmaware.
        thank you umesh

        • neversink

          Shoot in 1/3 stops…. There are many reasons….

          Take test shots…

          less need for bracketing….

  • Bjorn

    Guys, most of your comments are pathetic. I wonder if you use your equipment to take pictures or just want to impress your friens in the club. What about the 24-70/2.8 that is a beast but I guess you have one in the bag (maybe never used it)? It´s a free world, if you don’t like the glass dont buy it.

    • AM

      Don’t like the comments, don’t read them.

      • Calibrator

        Don’t like the posts, don’t comment them.

        • Rev Brimstone

          Mamma, some sexy piece of glass

  • D800_is_finally_here

    This 18-300 DX is almost the same lens as FX 28-300. 5% thinner and 5% longer. weight almost the same. I can imagine they modified the FX design, cut some corners (literally) of the glass, and call it a DX.

    I wish Nikon can do the reverse : enlarge the 18-200 DX into a FX 28-200 that’s optically better than FX 28-300, and yet lighter and shorter.

    • downhillschrott

      If you need a FX lens which is optically better than 28-300 f5.6 then go for 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 and stop them down t0 f4. A good combination would be 14-24 f2.8, 50 f1.8 and 70-200 f2.8 and again stop them down 1 step. If you need more reach you have to buy the 200-400 f4 (if you don’t want to focus to infinity) or the 300 f4 (if focus speed is not important) or 300 f2.8 (if you need fast AF, but I assume not because the 28-300 f5.6 is slow at the long end due to the small aperture).

      If you want to go lightweight, then wait for a Nikon evil FX as I do. But I think it will be not possible to make signifcant lighter lenses for FX without compromising quality.

      If FX is to heavy you have to use DX (which makes the bag lighter by about 20%) m4/3 or CX.

      • You are wrong about the size of the FX lenses. Just look at Canons 40mm pancake. Or look at Nikons old Nikkor-E lenses. Small and very good. More quality then most of the the crappy amateur photographers need. I use the Nikkor-E 50mm/1.8 pancake on my D3 when I need I lighter package.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          The amount of junk you have to carry is about the same until you try to telephoto or go wide much. Compare the size of the Tokina 50-1352.8 to their 70 or 80 to 2002.8. The one is about half the other and both give the same effective focal length on the cameras they were designed to work with. Or compare the size and weight of an old 600 f5.6 nikon with a 122mm filter and mounted on a full frame camera to a 400 f5.6 mounted on a dx.
          On the other end, you can compare the size of the sigma 12-24 to that of their 8-16 or their monstrous 15-30 to the humble 10-20, and so forth. Best comparison might be the size of a 24 or 28 to 70 against that of a 16 or 18 to 50 f2.8 zoom. Of course, that one even gets in the middle of the range…
          And finally you should remember that your series e pancake on a dx is much smaller than the 85 1.8 is on a full frame. But more importantly you might also remember that the 85 will currently offer more resolution when on the full frame than the fifty will on the 32oo and that it also gives you effectively more than a stop worth of advantage in subject isolation if you should want it…

  • Sky Black

    Considering how bad the 18-200 DX is, this can only be hideous. When you’re trying to fit that much zoom range into a lens it can only be a disaster, I don’t care who manufactures it. Hilariously it will typically be mated to a 24 meg D3200 which will ruthlessly show how bad the lens will actually be.

    • Jake

      I really don’t think you know the meaning of the word “bad”…

      • Sky Black

        “I really don’t think you know the meaning of the word “bad”…”

        I really don’t think you know the meaning of the word “good…”

      • PHB

        I think that the folk whaling on Nikon’s DX lenses never tried any of the zooms that were made in the 80s.

        Computer aided design has completely changed the game for zooms. The modern consumer zooms are way better than the early ‘professional’ models on every score.

        The point of having an 18-200 is convenience. It was never a cost saver, it has always cost rather more than a 18-55 and 55-200.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      My guess is that it will be a bit disappointing at 300 but probably better at 135 to 200 than the 18-200 is. Whether or not it is worth it probably depends on how it performs on the wide end and particularly in regards to distortion and corner sharpness. It will also be interesting to see how it compares to the various 70 – 300 and 55 – 300 lenses. If it can compare favorably then it is an excellent lens because it can replace all of them.
      I don’t actually use any of these, but would if I had to without flinching much, but I doubt it could beat a brand x 18-50 2.8 paired with a Nikon 55-300vr for image quality. Whenever it does that I’ll be glad to eat my words…

  • R!


    • S!

      Imma let you finish…

  • Iris Chrome

    Nikon issues new firmware update L 1.006 for all current DLSRs (D700 not included):

  • RC

    I will only upgrade if this lens outperforms the 18-200 (my favorite lens), which I think it will. I can’t wait for the lens tests! But I am quite wowed by the size difference, lol. But that doesn’t matter! If it’s better, I’ll take it!

  • FD

    Just got notice mine is shipping today from Adorama… Hot diggidy dog….

    • Please don’t forget to do give us your first impressions, and share some pictures!!

      • FD

        Will do, should arrive Monday.

  • Johan Palmertz

    The Swedish net store has tested both the 24-85 ( lens and the 18-300 ( lens. Both were avarded a silver lable.

    • babola

      They call that a test?

      What a joke…

      • Mock Rockwell

        What a bozos. I doubt they know photography at all.

      • it is a basic test, man !!!!

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Amazing. If you look below the picture it there are several f stops and if you click one you get a jumbo poster to scroll around. The 18 setting was sharp even wide open and the colors were great. At 38, not so much. At 155 it was excellent when stopped down. 300 was a little soft, but was usable wide open but with a very narrow depth of field. Colors didn’t seem to suffer. I would guess that is the best one of it’s type to date.

        Also, their presentation of the 24-85 left me a much better impression than what I saw yesterday on the other thread, probably because they used a tripod. I wonder what cameras were used…

  • Lance

    If not shooting sports or wildlife… a Fuji X100 with fixed 35mm, plus some brains and guts behind it, is all even a pro photojournalist needs. It’s 480 grams, 17 oz, fits in a pocket, has Leica Summicron image quality, and is totally silent. It’s also universally loved by subjects, who think it’s an old film camera.

    I quit using my D3S (though I kept it), sold my big Nikon glass, D700 and Leica M9. I laugh every time I see these huge zooms. I wish I could save everyone the trouble.

    But that’s just my opinion. I know I won’t convince anyone.

  • Back to top