Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
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?
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
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?
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
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
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
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.
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.