Nikon 18-300: f6.3 vs. f5.6?
Apr 20, 2017 14:10:21 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
StanRP wrote:
Correct:
The 18-300 f/5.6 was released June 2012
The 18-300 f/6.3 was released April 2014
The f/5.6 has VR - the f/6.3 has VRII
StanRP
The 18-300 f/5.6 was released June 2012
The 18-300 f/6.3 was released April 2014
The f/5.6 has VR - the f/6.3 has VRII
StanRP
So the one you have IS the 5.6? And the VRII is an improved system? Is the f6.3 that much of an issue?
Apr 20, 2017 14:14:53 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
Kfallsfotoman wrote:
But if I was in a crunch and only could afford the Tamron I would go for it!
If you're traveling - and that is main reason for the lens - having one lens that covers this range would make life a lot easier.
Another point - especially if traveling - is size and weight. From a handling standpoint I seem to recall the Tamron was smaller and lighter than the nikon.
If you're traveling - and that is main reason for the lens - having one lens that covers this range would make life a lot easier.
Another point - especially if traveling - is size and weight. From a handling standpoint I seem to recall the Tamron was smaller and lighter than the nikon.
Not a huge price difference between the Tamron and the Nikon (f6.3). Not that concerned about size and weight. Again, not too much difference here, either.
Apr 20, 2017 14:20:03 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
Thomas902 wrote:
kb6kgx the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS EX HSM is the only... (show quote)
I'd read that the AF-P is not compatible with the D7100. Is that not the case? You don't mind the cheaper "feel" of this lens?
Apr 20, 2017 15:34:33 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
kb6kgx wrote:
So the one you have IS the 5.6? And the VRII is an improved system? Is the f6.3 that much of an issue?
The one I have is the 6.3 - that has the VRII
For me the f/6.3 was not an issue. Both of them are good lens.
StanRP
Apr 20, 2017 15:53:22 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
StanRP wrote:
The one I have is the 6.3 - that has the VRII
For me the f/6.3 was not an issue. Both of them are good lens.
StanRP
For me the f/6.3 was not an issue. Both of them are good lens.
StanRP
Thanks. Good to know.
Apr 20, 2017 17:12:27 #
kb6kgx wrote:
After much consideration and question-asking, here... (show quote)
So the f5.6 gathers (77/67)^2 = 1.32, or 32%, more light to start. And f5.6 means about a stop faster at 300mm, where it matters.
But the VR might be better on the new Nikon.
Apr 20, 2017 17:15:50 #
kb6kgx wrote:
I'd read that the AF-P is not compatible with the D7100. Is that not the case? You don't mind the cheaper "feel" of this lens?
The VR version gets good reviews. I am considering one because it weighs half my 28-300.
I am not sure about the 7100 but I read somwhere it will work with my D5300 with a firmware update. That might also be true for the D7100.
Walmart has it for $200. Probably grey market but maybe worth it.
Apr 20, 2017 17:41:23 #
kb6kgx wrote:
Just want to clarify. I believe that the 5.6 is the older one and the 6.3 is the newer one.
You are SO correct!! My mea culpa.
Apr 20, 2017 17:43:41 #
I have been using the 18-300 f6.3 as walk about on my D7200 since last August.
It works for me.
It works for me.
Apr 20, 2017 18:07:47 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
MtnMan wrote:
So the f5.6 gathers (77/67)^2 = 1.32, or 32%, more light to start. And f5.6 means about a stop faster at 300mm, where it matters.
But the VR might be better on the new Nikon.
But the VR might be better on the new Nikon.
So the f5.6 gathers (77/67)^2 = 1.32, or 32%, more light to start. And f5.6 means about a stop faster at 300mm, where it matters. But the VR might be better on the new Nikon.
For me, at 300mm having the aperture at the 'sweet spot' of about f/8 is more important than max possible light.
Of course, this applies to the f/5.6 as well. When a shallow depth of field is important - then the f/5.6 has a slight edge.
Both of them are good lens.
Apr 20, 2017 19:22:42 #
Tommy II wrote:
The Tamron 16-300 is a nice lens. I bought one last month. And it's been in my Nikon D7000 since. I kept my Nikon 50mm f/1.4and 35mm f/1.8, and sold my other Nikon lenses. I'm not a Pro, but to my eye, it takes beautiful, clear pictures. I bought it from B&H for $549.00, but Adorama and Cameta have it for the same price. If you're not s Pro, and you want to quit buying all these lenses, grab one. You'll really like it. Filters are 67mm.
Apr 20, 2017 19:24:26 #
jerryc41 wrote:
It was nice of you to bring your daughter with you.
Apr 20, 2017 21:53:45 #
2Much
Loc: WA
kb6kgx wrote:
I'd read that the AF-P is not compatible with the D7100. Is that not the case? You don't mind the cheaper "feel" of this lens?
The product overview for the AF-P 70-300mm lens on B&H says it is compatible with D7000-series cameras from the D7100 and later.
Apr 20, 2017 22:18:07 #
I suspect there is a bigger difference between photographers than between the Nikon and Tamron lenses.
Apr 20, 2017 22:19:50 #
2Much
Loc: WA
[quote=Thomas902]pick up the new Pulse Stepper Focus Motor AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3E ED VR optic... It totally blows both of these older "Super Zooms" out of the water... quote]
How is the IQ at the 300mm end of that lens, Thomas?
I have the original non-VR FX version and (in addition to being slow to focus) it's not very sharp in the 200-300 mm range.
How is the IQ at the 300mm end of that lens, Thomas?
I have the original non-VR FX version and (in addition to being slow to focus) it's not very sharp in the 200-300 mm range.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.