Nikon 18 - 300 vs Nikon 18 - 300
Dec 3, 2019 20:00:25 #
ollie
Loc: Ogdensburg, NY
Nikon lists two 18 - 300 Dx zoom lenses. Both have same f values but one is much more expensive and more than 50% heavier. It's also 25% longer (physically) From the rest of the technical data on the web page they're the same. What makes one longer, heavier and a lot more expensive ?
Dec 3, 2019 20:03:17 #
To get a useful answer, you need to describe each lens in full with the inscription on each lens.
Dec 3, 2019 20:11:27 #
Are you sure they're both the same aperture? Isn't one f/3.5-f/5.6 and the other f/3.5-f/6.3?
Dec 3, 2019 20:17:01 #
Dec 3, 2019 20:32:44 #
smussler
Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY
You sure about both being DX. There is an FX (Full Frame Camera) That's heavier and a couple of hundred dollars more.
Dec 3, 2019 20:40:53 #
smussler wrote:
You sure about both being DX. There is an FX (Full Frame Camera) That's heavier and a couple of hundred dollars more.
Of the two CO had pictured in the post before yours, they both say DX.
Dec 3, 2019 21:19:49 #
From physical appearance it looks like the one on the right is a FX lens, like mine. Why don't you call the people and ask?
Dec 3, 2019 22:41:46 #
smussler wrote:
You sure about both being DX. There is an FX (Full Frame Camera) That's heavier and a couple of hundred dollars more.
An FX 18 - 300 Nikkor lens???
---
Dec 3, 2019 22:44:48 #
CO wrote:
One is f/5.6 max aperture at 300mm. The other is f/6.3
I had the f/6.3, didn't like it, returned for the 5.6
Dec 3, 2019 23:08:37 #
ollie
Loc: Ogdensburg, NY
that's the answer I was looking for. Someone with actual, hands on experience with both lenses.
Dec 4, 2019 05:54:58 #
ollie wrote:
Nikon lists two 18 - 300 Dx zoom lenses. Both have same f values but one is much more expensive and more than 50% heavier. It's also 25% longer (physically) From the rest of the technical data on the web page they're the same. What makes one longer, heavier and a lot more expensive ?
I have the 18-300 f5.6 DX lens. Use it all the time. My daughter has the 18-300 f6.3 DX lens. Works great. Picture quality looks the same but hers is slower, lighter and cheaper.
...Cam
Dec 4, 2019 06:14:55 #
Our family also has both. I use the f/5.6 on my D500 only when i really don’t know what i’ll be needing on any particular day, but my wife keeps her f/6.3 on a D5300 all the time and loves it. I get a nice warm feeling about using a slightly higher quality lens when I am using the f/5.6, but I honestly haven’t pushed it critically to see if it makes much difference.
Dec 4, 2019 06:57:57 #
CO wrote:
One is f/5.6 max aperture at 300mm. The other is f/6.3
Increasing the aperture increases everything else.
Dec 4, 2019 09:35:54 #
Have used both. The 18-5.6 is overall superior. Somewhat heavier but doesn’t seem to have the ‘breathing’ issues to the extent of the 6.3 version. Resolution is better. You might also consider the 18-200 3.5-5.6 if the 300 reach is not a deal breaker. It is the best of both.
Dec 4, 2019 09:37:39 #
smussler wrote:
You sure about both being DX. There is an FX (Full Frame Camera) That's heavier and a couple of hundred dollars more.
The FF is 28/300.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.