Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon 18-300: f6.3 vs. f5.6?
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 4 next>>
Apr 19, 2017 12:16:51   #
kb6kgx
 
After much consideration and question-asking, here on UHH, time is almost up for decision making.

I had pretty much decided on the Sigma 17-50 and Nikon 70-300. But I'm still about $200 short to get both of those. So, I'm thinking that, since what I want these for is for mostly travel purposes, and to only have to deal with ONE lens, that my present needs would be better served with the 18-300.

As for the 18-300, I can get the f6.3 version NOW. I don't know if the f5.6 version is worth another $300 for just something bigger and heavier. The f5.6, which is older, has a few more lens elements than the f6.3, and both have 3 ED and three aspheric elements. So, I would think that image quality would be the same.

This may be a silly question, but the f5.6 has a 77mm filter size, while the f6.3 has a 67mm size. How significant is that, other than the cost of the filters?

Lastly, how does the Tamron 16-300 compare with the Nikon? It's $100 cheaper, compared to the f6.3, but if I got the Tamron, would I be sorry and wished I'd gotten the Nikon?

Sorry for all the continuing questions, but I want to get something that will work for me.
 
Apr 19, 2017 12:22:38   #
blue-ultra (a regular here)
 
If you have a Nikon Camera, I would advise the Nikon Lens. However if $$ is the deal breaker, the Tamron is a very good lens. One other word from me on this is try to get the f3.5 if you are only going to get one lens for travel. You will at lease be able to shoot in low light with a reasonable outcome.
Apr 19, 2017 12:32:53   #
kb6kgx
 
Though the Tamron is $100 less, and has 2mm more on the wide end, both lenses are f3.5-6.3. My gut feeling is to go with the Nikon "just because". Build quality and overall reputation. By the way, the camera is the D7100.

That Tamron has a 6-year warranty over Nikon's 5-year is irrelevant.

My only other question is whether or not the f5.6 version is worth $300 more. My gut feeling is... no.
Apr 19, 2017 13:09:21   #
PeggySue58
 
kb6kgx wrote:


My only other question is whether or not the f5.6 version is worth $300 more. My gut feeling is... no.


This is a question that I have had as well! I have the D7200 and was looking at the Nikon 18-300! So glad you asked, I have looked at comparisons but wondered if the extra for the f3.5-f5.6 was worth it. Will be watching to see what the opinions are!
Apr 19, 2017 13:23:42   #
blue-ultra (a regular here)
 
kb6kgx wrote:
Though the Tamron is $100 less, and has 2mm more on the wide end, both lenses are f3.5-6.3. My gut feeling is to go with the Nikon "just because". Build quality and overall reputation. By the way, the camera is the D7100.

That Tamron has a 6-year warranty over Nikon's 5-year is irrelevant.

My only other question is whether or not the f5.6 version is worth $300 more. My gut feeling is... no.

I actually use the Nikon 28 - 300 f3.5 and have had great shots with it. However in low light I love my 24-70 f2.8 :-)
Apr 19, 2017 13:39:06   #
blue-ultra (a regular here)
 
kb6kgx wrote:
Though the Tamron is $100 less, and has 2mm more on the wide end, both lenses are f3.5-6.3. My gut feeling is to go with the Nikon "just because". Build quality and overall reputation. By the way, the camera is the D7100.

That Tamron has a 6-year warranty over Nikon's 5-year is irrelevant.

My only other question is whether or not the f5.6 version is worth $300 more. My gut feeling is... no.

Here is a photo I took this winter in Aruba with my Nikon D810 with the 28 - 300 f3.5 a little fill flash.
This was shot at 28 mm as you can see the debt of field is pretty good and the detail is great. Nothing wrong with this lens.


(Download)
 
Apr 19, 2017 13:57:21   #
kb6kgx
 
blue-ultra wrote:
Here is a photo I took this winter in Aruba with my Nikon D810 with the 28 - 300 f3.5 a little fill flash.
This was shot at 28 mm as you can see the debt of field is pretty good and the detail is great. Nothing wrong with this lens.


This is about the D7100/7200. Yes, a FX lens CAN be used on a DX body, but that's not what we're talking about, here.

The question is comparing the 18-300 f3.5-6.3 to the larger, heavier and $300 more expensive f3.5-5.6, if it is worth the extra cost.
Apr 19, 2017 14:47:37   #
blue-ultra (a regular here)
 
Gee all the time I thought you were interested in choosing between the Nikon lens and the Tamron.
My take is the best glass gets you the best image, and yes, there is more weight and more money.
I was trying to tell you that the 28-300 Nikon lens works well for travel photography as you can shoot almost any thing you want with the focal range unless you age looking for a magazine cover. Doesn't matter if its a DX or FX IMHO. Hope this was helpful.
Bob
Apr 19, 2017 15:11:22   #
kb6kgx
 
blue-ultra wrote:
Gee all the time I thought you were interested in choosing between the Nikon lens and the Tamron.
My take is the best glass gets you the best image, and yes, there is more weight and more money.
I was trying to tell you that the 28-300 Nikon lens works well for travel photography as you can shoot almost any thing you want with the focal range unless you age looking for a magazine cover. Doesn't matter if its a DX or FX IMHO. Hope this was helpful.
Bob


Then perhaps I misunderstood your point.

No, I'm not looking for magazine covers or billboards. Some say get a "FX" lens if you even think you might go "full frame" in the future. Others say get the right lens for the right body, if it's DX, then get DX.

And yes, I am also asking about how the Tamron compares to the Nikon. Would I be pleased or not notice a difference if I got the Tamron?
Apr 19, 2017 18:51:40   #
blue-ultra (a regular here)
 
I have more than several Nikon lens. I enjoy and trust each of them to do the job they were intended to do. I have one Tamron lens and it is nice, takes good photos, it just is not a Nikon lens and I will leave it at that so I don't start a firestorm here.
Apr 19, 2017 18:53:39   #
kb6kgx
 
blue-ultra wrote:
I have more than several Nikon lens. I enjoy and trust each of them to do the job they were intended to do. I have one Tamron lens and it is nice, takes good photos, it just is not a Nikon lens and I will leave it at that so I don't start a firestorm here.


I get ya. 👍
 
Apr 19, 2017 20:42:39   #
CO (a regular here)
 
LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. When you get to the bottom of the page you will see the twelve different categories. Click on each one to see their test results.

Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5,6
http://www.lenstip.com/423.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-300_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR-Introduction.html

Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3
http://www.lenstip.com/426.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-300_mm_f_3.5-6.3G_ED_VR-Introduction.html
Apr 19, 2017 23:36:51   #
kb6kgx
 
CO wrote:
LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. When you get to the bottom of the page you will see the twelve different categories. Click on each one to see their test results.

Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5,6
http://www.lenstip.com/423.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-300_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR-Introduction.html

Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3
http://www.lenstip.com/426.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-300_mm_f_3.5-6.3G_ED_VR-Introduction.html


Read both reviews. Interesting that LensTip doesn’t seem to be overly thrilled about the more expensive f5.6, gave a decent review of the less expensive (and slower) f6.3, but seems to recommend the Tamron 16-300 as the “better” buy.
Apr 20, 2017 00:41:03   #
SteveR (a regular here)
 
blue-ultra wrote:
Here is a photo I took this winter in Aruba with my Nikon D810 with the 28 - 300 f3.5 a little fill flash.
This was shot at 28 mm as you can see the debt of field is pretty good and the detail is great. Nothing wrong with this lens.


I also suggest the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6. Down the line pick up a Tamron 10-24mm. They're the only two lenses you'll ever need. I have both and they're great.
Apr 20, 2017 00:46:39   #
kb6kgx
 
SteveR wrote:
I also suggest the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6. Down the line pick up a Tamron 10-24mm. They're the only two lenses you'll ever need. I have both and they're great.


Not ready to spend a grand on a single lens at this point, but I do know someone who uses it on his D600 and loves it.
Page: 1 2 3 4 next>>
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.