Pictures of the Wood and Red versions show a larger magnifying lens (thinner frame). Is it really larger, or is that just retouching?
1653180
Hi, The lens is made of high-quality magnifying lens. The size is equal to INR 1 Rupee coin, that is not very large.
675591
The difference between the original and the "grande," is that the "grande" is a larger version of the original
2235465
No. All the zooming is done internally. There is no change in the physical size and neither the front ring or front elements rotate.
2114812
It's really more like a "painted/stained" look to the wood frame. I love them and have gotten several compliments on them. They match my "dragonfly" motiff in my bathroom at our lakehome. The frame makes the photo appear very "rich".
1492845
Mine was real, don't know about the one ur getting. There are ways to determine though, u can look online to see the difference, one thing u'll notice is that if u focus on the reticle, it is blurry, it is meant for quick reaction and works with both eyes open. Reticle will come clear when U actually look at the target and not focus on the reticle. I did end up buying the 3x magnifier and when u put that on, it makes it clear, but the 3x is for long range, both eyes open won't work with the 3x magnifier. This is ideal for close range only.
583554
I found that the photo's I've taken with this lens are much sharper. It's almost like the kit lens was looking through a double paned window in comparison. The color saturation seems to be better too, but it could be due to the crispness of the image. If your unsure - rent one and compare, or find a friend willing to share and try it for a day. This lens is much heavier to carry (more elements means more weight). I don't find this a fault.
1004338
YES! It is as large as the original, but much better viewing. I have not measured it, but it may be even slightly larger. You can see it in the photo.
265229
Yes it's bigger actually. You cut it to fit with scissors. Works great BTW.
2183426
Hi, Here is a good review from Ken Rockwell. This Nikon 18-300mm VR is a smaller, lighter version of the original 18-300mm VR. The original 18-300 was very good, so good in fact that I sold an image I made with it to McDonald's - and they are using it on a billboard. This new lens is as good, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive, so it's even better! My only real complaint about the original 18-300 was that it weighed a lot more than my camera, and this new 18-300 weighs ten ounces less! This new 18-300mm also offers Vibration Reduction (4 stops) and instant manual-focus override. It's very slightly slower at the 300mm end (f/6.3 versus f/5.6) than the older lens, and for ten ounces off my shoulder, that's nothing. By taking off 10 ounces, I now can carry this new lens everywhere I never bothered with the old 18-300. This new lens do everything, and it even does macro. At 300mm, it focuses to within just inches of the front of the lens.
2133473
They are very close to what you see is what you get. They come up about 10-15% smaller than what you are seeing through the viewfinder. (depending on the amount of zoom you are using when shooting). I've had mine for over a year now and still enjoying it.
1123534
yeah, the unmagnified side is. The magnified side obviously has some distortion since the lens is curved but it's not irregular or bumpy if that's what you mean.
1232157
Thanks for that question! It shows them being larger than the full size model!
1606032
I never had the original, but the image quality is very very close to that of my 5DmkIII's. I have only used it in raw, not jpg, but I am blown away with the quality both at the base and at higher ISO's
258269
If I can quote Ken Rockwell: "Compared to the 12-24mm which it replaces, the 10-24mm is more cheaply built. The 12-24mm was built to semi-pro standards, but this new 10-24mm feels more dinky and I suspect will break if you bang the front of it into anything hard enough." And "the 10-24mm gets longer as zoomed, while the 12-24mm stays the same size as seen here" The 12-24 can be at f4 throughout it's range; the 10-24 is a variable aperture of f3.5 - f4.5
1789605
Hello, no, the picture shown is accurate, the lens has the red line. In fact when I just opened a new stock Rokinon and a new stock Samyang, both lenses are identical in size, and both lenses have the red line. So the lens is identical to the Rokinon(and both are like the picture), but neither are as you are describing. Thanks and please let us know if you have any other questions.
544873
Yes! It's an EF lens, it has the red dot and wotks even with full frame bodies, unlike the EF-S lenses with the white square
765095
sorry have not had mine long enough to answer that. but i will tell you that the magnification is not what i expected.would have sent it back but my husband 'hard wired' it and i did not have the heart to tell him i was not happy with it. don't buy it!