Nikon 18-300mm replacement for 18-105mm and 55-300mm?

Is it reasonable to add $400 more to replace my Nikon 18-105mm and 55-300mm ($600 total) with Nikon 18-300mm? I want to replace my two lenses with one to make it easier not to always change the lenses. But I'm worry if the quality of pictures will be different, I read some reviews that the picture qualities are not that good for 18-300mm. I will be spending $400 more, I don't know if this will be reasonable.

Putting that much zoom into one lens comes at a price in money, weight, and quality. Central sharpness is good for much of its range, although that declines at the longer focal lengths. Corner sharpness is not bad around 50mm, but goes to hell for most of the range.

There are many who are looking for a single lens solution.

The 18-200 mm VR was that lens for a long time and I use is a lot when shooting editorial assignments and it is my go to lens when shooting motocross assignments.

If you need the reach and do not what to have to carry two or more lenses with you, then the 18-300 mm lens may be the lens for you, but as you know, super zooms are a compromise. All you can really do is visit a proper camera shop and look through both the 18-200 mm and 18-300 mm and see which fits your needs the best. While shooting resolution charts in a lab can indicate certain softness at the edges of an image, in the real world of photography, when shooting from a long distance, the edges are usually not in focus in any case.

Sample of a shot using the 18-200 mm.

.html? Sort=3&o=21

These type lenses are usually used to shoot action and the important part of the image draws the eye away from the edge of the frame in any case.

Where sharpness from edge to edge is super important is when you are shooting landscapes and super detailed macro shots (such as coins, stamps or medical subjects)