What is the difference between this new lens and the old 18-300 one? please be specific.
1380695
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6.
1380696
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6. Some say it doesn't take as sharp of pictures. I don't agree and the trade off for how much small and lighter it is, is well worth it to me. It is even lighter than my older 18-200VR. For a everyday lens that can take photos between 18 - 300, It is ideal for me. If I need sharper, I'll use a dedicated lens for that shot!
1380697
Cheaper and lighter, but slower at the long end of the zoom when compared to the older Nikon 18-300. Lighter than my old Nikon 18-200 VR. A well worthwhile upgrade, for me that is.
1380698
I called Nikon, and they guided me to their site where you could do a compare on both lens (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/Sports-and-Action/index.page). Turns out the old one is heavier, has more elements, and takes sharper pictures. This one is very ideal for me and takes great pictures. The lighter the better. Hope I answered your question.
1380699
I tried both, sent this one back. There is noticeable difference in sharpness when zoomed in.
1380700
It is a new design that is smaller and lighter. Some might argue that the older design is a little sharper, but I am satisfied with the newer design as an "all purpose travel lens". For critical work, I would use my 70-200.
67327
The one that includes "Macro" in the name is the newest version: "Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM". It is smaller, lighter, and has improved close-up capability; hence the inclusion of the "Macro" monniker. The older lens is still available on Amazon for $329 versus $399 for the new one. Hope this helps!
2251841
I do own a 18-50mm on my Rebel.. and this one is for my Nikon... But I really can't distinguish any differences since I am pretty new to the hobby. But I find it very easy now to just have one lens on all the time .. with my canon I would always have to keep changing from my 15-50mm to my zoom lens a lot and it takes too much time plus you have to carry another lens with you. So far so good.. its a really awesome lens.. and all my friends think its cool!
608535
Hey,the focus is very fast and absolutely noticeable compared to the 18-55mm. Hope that helps.Kind regards
2184845
I do not know which other lens you are talking about. My guess is it has the same specs as this one also by Canon. They are versions of the same lens. The one whose page you are on is newer. The old one has a 67 mm diameter the new one 72 mm. New one has updated focal elements but it's roughly the same.
1316306
I have no idea. The 70-300 gives me access to short range subjects and my grandson has used it for senior pictures. The L lens is the best I believe.
1873695
These lens are totally different. With the 18-200 you are covering a large range of view. You easily can use it in your living room and take a family portrait and in a few seconds later go to your backyard and get a quickly close up of a bird without changing lens or exposing the camera and your lens to moist. So, if you a plan to shoot wildlife or subjects located far away you need the 75-300. Otherwise, i would recommend the 18-200. I hope this help ; )
464455
The 18-55 is a great lens, but the 23mm prime is a magic lens. Since I've acquired the 23mm I hardly use my 18-55. Maybe it's still the honeymoon phase, but I just love the 23. It renders images in a different way than the 18-55, and the speed/DOF of 1.4 really does make a difference.
1380192
Partially in response to Paula J's answer below, I have had both lenses. The 70-300L is actually sharper in the center than the fixed 300L prime. The 300L prime is sharper on the edges and corners. If you want the F4 aperture at 300mm, then you have to go with the prime. If you don't need this, then newer 70-300L. It is lighter, more compact, has a better image stabilizer and gives you the versatility of a zoom.
1936609
I am a novice, at best. It appears to me that the 70-300 has these unique characteristics: -Yes, the 70-300 has faster auto-focus. -The 70-300 is an FX lens that is both fully FX and DX functional. The 55-300 is a DX lens, therefore it will cause sizing limitations if used on a FX digital camera.-The 70-300 is heavier and larger.
233940
It looks like the "#883-101" is a newer version for the same model. You may not be able to buy "#880-101". I did a comparison of these two versions and here are differences [values for #883-101], (values for #880-101): 1. Angle View: [69.3 - 5.7], (76.5 - 6.5) 2. Minimum Focus Distance: [13.8" (35.05 cm)], (1.48' (45 cm)) 3. Elements/Groups: [13/16], (18/14) 4. Filter Thread: [62 mm], (72 mm) 5. Dimensions (DxL): [Approx. 2.9x3.5" (7.37x8.89 cm)], (Approx. 3.1x4.0" (7.87x10.16 cm)) 6. Weight: [1.04 lb. (470g)], (1.39 lb. (630g)) - Most of other features are the same. I hope this will be helpful.
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
536020
I sold it to someone that has a D5000. Frankly I did not like that lens at all that's why I sold it. I used it on my D300 and D5100 as you are moving along all of a sudden every 7-10 shots it will be a blank photo. I am a wedding photographer you cannot have that. I don't recommend that lens at all. The best lens I've ever owned was the Nikkor 18-200... the 18-300 is in my wish list. You can purchase the Nikon 18-200 for 650.00 these days. That is cheap I purchased mine at 1500.00. I don't regret it I don't ever interchange lenses since I purchased it.
914060
This lens is the later version. It is much lighter to carry and is both faster and not nearly as heavy. Mine is near new but I am going to sell it only to buy a new prime lens that I want.
1762798
I'm a previous owner of Tamron's 18-270 vc. The 18-270 was annoyingly noisy when set to auto focus. The benefits of upgrading to Tamron's 16-300 are increased range and quiet pizzio drive. Țamron's 16-300 is my new go to all around lens.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
1794473
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended!