bellgamin wrote:
P.S. I wonder why Nikon offers 2 different lenses with such near-identical ranges?
The 18-135 is an older design (2006?) and does not have vibration reduction (VR).
The 18-140 is newer (2013) and DOES have VR.
Get the 18-140 VR, the 18-200 VR II or even the 18-300 VR lens and you will be quite happy.
If you go for the 18-300, get the newer one, as it is over a half pound lighter.
I use the 18-55 and the 55-200 simply because they are smaller, lighter and less expensive.
With a 35mm equivalent of a 300mm lens, *I* don't need a longer telephoto.
Beware. Slow lenses often slow AF to a crawl.
bellgamin wrote:
How much will a non-Pro (VERY "non") notice the difference between f 5.6 (on a Nikkor 18-200mm at full zoom) VERSUS f6.3 (on a Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm at full zoom)? Is the difference "huge", "moderate", or "not that significant except for a Pro"?
Details of lenses forming background for this question...
Tamron A14 AF 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD IF Macro Lens Nikon #910
OR
Sigma DC 18-200MM 1:32.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens for Nikon DSLR
VERSUS
Nikon NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR ED M/A Lens
NOTE: My camera Nikon D3500
How much will a non-Pro (VERY "non") not... (
show quote)
No difference any one no matter who they are could ever tell the difference of any of the lenses mentioned by looking at the photos.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.