"Sheldon" wrote in message
...

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...

"Sandy Bloom, Ph.D." wrote in message
...
Do you think the quality difference between Nikon "ED" and "G" lenses
are
worth the price difference? The ED lenses are touted to be better, and
they
are certainly heavier. They seem to have more glass. I am leaning
heavily
toward buying the "ED"'s.

Thanks,

Sandy

The question is really only relevant to, I think, one lens- the 70-300,
of
which there are G and ED versions- the G lacks an aperture ring and ED
elements, whereas the ED has both. I've seen some awful results off of
the
G lens- then again, the ED doesn't seem too stellar either. Nikon don't
have "series" lenses- the top-end 70-200mm is both ED and G and I don't
think anyone is suggesting that lens is a budget item. That said, the 85
f1.4 isn't touted as ED or G, and is a phenomenal lens.

Martin.

As you said, most people ask this question about the 70-300. I think
the
ED has a better lens mount and may be built better, but neither gets
rave
reviews. I think this came up here awhile back, and if I remember
correctly both lenses had the same elements in the same grouping. Nikon
makes better zoom lenses in that range, but they ain't cheap. You might
try hitting your neighborhood camera store and shooting a few shots with
both lenses to see if they meet your requirements, and to see if you can
see a difference between the two.


Can anyone suggest another AF brand Nikon mount lens that would be better
quality?

Sandy