kb6kgx wrote:
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.
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.