If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
Bruce writes:
The original AF 70-210mm f/4 was quite good but too expensive to make, so it was replaced with the cheap and nasty 70-210mm f/4-5.6 which inexplicably acquired a stellar reputation on the basis of one good review. The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 was an excellent performer but was too expensive, so was replaced, initially with the much cheaper 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED and later with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Both were made by Tamron whose own version was better than both Nikkors with a price nearer the cheaper Nikon G version. These assertions that Nikon-branded lenses were made by Tamron (or anybody else) is a red flag to me. How do you happen to know that, and can you cite a source? That such things happen is frequently denied pretty authoritatively. On the other hand, if one *is* looking at the consumer-grade lenses, then I very much agree that looking at the major third-party manufacturers is a VERY good idea in general, regardless of who actually makes the Nikon-branded lenses. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
Stuffed Crust wrote: Bruce wrote: The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600. Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to the 70-300VR. FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the latter, I've almost never used the former. Generally speaking I don't disagree about the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D... Except in this case the OP explicitly specified the need for VR and fast AF. I thought it was going a bit out on a limb to talk about the 80-400mm, but the 80-200mm borders on off topic! Precisely. I concur with this analysis. Assuming of course that fast AF and VR actually are needed. Yes; he did say it initially, so I think it's proper to consider them a requirement. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
On 23/05/2012 6:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-23 00:42:03 -0700, Rob said: How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm? Better or worse? I think that lens is a DX. I am after a D800 as well so this is not an option. r Nope! It is not a DX. In my hand I have an AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR. i was refering to the suggested 55-300 which is a DX lens. Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens DX-Format Zoom 82.5-450mm Equivalent Focal Length in FX VR II Image Stabilization Rounded 9-Blade Diaphragm |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
On 23/05/2012 12:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-22 16:38:36 -0700, Rob said: Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens. The new AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR, is a very good value lens which produces good results, and is a great improvement over the old non-VR 70-300mm I have the new lens and have owned the old. Here are some of the images it has produced for me with a D300s: http://db.tt/zyiTdFvy http://db.tt/yzx7vAQi http://db.tt/KXNMS1YS http://db.tt/Aur6eA0g http://db.tt/VhVhuttQ Like the images How would they go to a 24" wide print?? I have a Epson 7900 printer. Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports. Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good. It is very good, but certainly not a 70-200mm VRII at almost 3X the price. My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type and not the SW focus. I hardly ever use my 80-400mm any more. It is not the sharpest of lenses, and it is certainly slow. Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at?? Need a fast AF and VR thanks. Depending on the $$$ you care to spend, the 70-300mm VR should be on the consideration list for the hobbyist. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
On 2012-05-23 22:09:30 -0700, Rob said:
On 23/05/2012 12:53 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-05-22 16:38:36 -0700, Rob said: Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens. The new AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR, is a very good value lens which produces good results, and is a great improvement over the old non-VR 70-300mm I have the new lens and have owned the old. Here are some of the images it has produced for me with a D300s: http://db.tt/zyiTdFvy http://db.tt/yzx7vAQi http://db.tt/KXNMS1YS http://db.tt/Aur6eA0g http://db.tt/VhVhuttQ Like the images How would they go to a 24" wide print?? I have a Epson 7900 printer. I would imagine that they would look just fine as a 24"x16". I haven't tried prints with a 24" dimension. I have an Epson R2880 which along with standard paper sizes up to 13"x19", I could load with a 13"x20' roll, which is great for panoramas, or large mosaics or 13"x19" "thick media" single sheet feed, but I have limited myself to 19"x13" max for now. However I have considered getting some custom "LARGE" prints made by MPix or a company of their ilk. I have found that my favorite papers are several of the Red River Paper offerings. http://www.redrivercatalog.com/ I have a particular liking to their 66 lb. Polar Pearl Metallic, which with the R2880, produces quite amazing and jaw dropping prints. http://www.redrivercatalog.com/brows...oto-paper.html They have a sample pack with a variety of their papers at 8.5x11. Well worth exploring if you are looking for something different. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
On 23/05/2012 11:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-23 02:39:18 -0700, "Trevor" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2012052301301438165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm? Better or worse? I think that lens is a DX. I am after a D800 as well so this is not an option. Nope! It is not a DX. In my hand I have an AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR. I think he meant the 55-300 was DX, but IMO if he is buying a D800 a 70-200 VR would be a better match anyway. Trevor. Agreed. If he is spending the $$$ on a D800 he should be able to afford the quality glass needed for optimal performance of that camera. I have the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII on my with list along with a lot of other desirable glass I can't justify buying, or afford right now. Sometimes I think I must be crazy to have spent what I have on cameras, lenses and kit as a hobbyist. I believe I have got reasonable bang for my bucks by resisting impulse buying the latest and greatest. That said I have my wish list and I chip away at that whenever the opportunity arises. Rob did not specify the DSLR he intended using when he first posed the question in his OP. Now that he has clarified his intent to buy a D800, he is indicating he has the ability to spend some $8-12K to build a working bag filled with a camera which demands great glass. The 70-300mm is an affordable compromise probably not well matched to the D800. However it does a reasonable job on my D300s and the D700. A short history then! Its not a matter of spending its the zoom range and weight. I now use 24-120 f4 plus a 12-24 DX for the majority of my stuff. using a D90 and D300. I only own one DX lens for wide angle stuff. I have waited for so long for the D700 replacement which was on imminent release for so long I've forgotten. My requirements have been for a full frame camera as I like the feel of the images. using some of my old manual Wide lenses, so much better than the 12-24 DX will ever produce. I have heaps of lenses including a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4.5 IF ED, in the long range also use a 500 5.6 Mamiya lens with a Zork adaptor. I hate carrying gear around nowdays, hence trying to consolidate what I do carry. My 80-200 f2.8 is heavy and slow in focusing. the 70-300 would encompass my requirements taking boat races, and lugging it around all day, weight wise. We still get a better print from a digital image to digital print than we ever had with film and a wet print. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
On 2012-05-23 23:56:00 -0700, Rob said:
On 23/05/2012 11:02 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-05-23 02:39:18 -0700, "Trevor" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2012052301301438165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm? Better or worse? I think that lens is a DX. I am after a D800 as well so this is not an option. Nope! It is not a DX. In my hand I have an AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR. I think he meant the 55-300 was DX, but IMO if he is buying a D800 a 70-200 VR would be a better match anyway. Trevor. Agreed. If he is spending the $$$ on a D800 he should be able to afford the quality glass needed for optimal performance of that camera. I have the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII on my with list along with a lot of other desirable glass I can't justify buying, or afford right now. Sometimes I think I must be crazy to have spent what I have on cameras, lenses and kit as a hobbyist. I believe I have got reasonable bang for my bucks by resisting impulse buying the latest and greatest. That said I have my wish list and I chip away at that whenever the opportunity arises. Rob did not specify the DSLR he intended using when he first posed the question in his OP. Now that he has clarified his intent to buy a D800, he is indicating he has the ability to spend some $8-12K to build a working bag filled with a camera which demands great glass. The 70-300mm is an affordable compromise probably not well matched to the D800. However it does a reasonable job on my D300s and the D700. A short history then! Its not a matter of spending its the zoom range and weight. I now use 24-120 f4 plus a 12-24 DX for the majority of my stuff. using a D90 and D300. I only own one DX lens for wide angle stuff. I have waited for so long for the D700 replacement which was on imminent release for so long I've forgotten. My requirements have been for a full frame camera as I like the feel of the images. using some of my old manual Wide lenses, so much better than the 12-24 DX will ever produce. I have heaps of lenses including a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4.5 IF ED, in the long range also use a 500 5.6 Mamiya lens with a Zork adaptor. I hate carrying gear around nowdays, hence trying to consolidate what I do carry. My 80-200 f2.8 is heavy and slow in focusing. the 70-300 would encompass my requirements taking boat races, and lugging it around all day, weight wise. My main reasons for using the 70-300mm VR, are economy of weight and economy. We still get a better print from a digital image to digital print than we ever had with film and a wet print. I started limiting my bag. I hardly ever carry my 80-400mm. My walk around lens on my D300s is the 18-200mm VRII. Then I usually have ready access to the 70-300mm VR, my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and a 35mm f/2.0 Many times, depending on circumstances, I will just carry the D300S + 18-200mm with the 11-16mm in a vest pocket. Anyway with that set up I can come up with this sort of variety; Tokina 11-16mm: http://db.tt/lMYk7Ueh 18-200mm VRII http://db.tt/L2aBL21r http://db.tt/ThPnQ7UD and 70-300mm VR http://db.tt/9NxGQpX1 -- Regards, Savageduck |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 70-300 VR lens
Rob wrote:
A short history then! Its not a matter of spending its the zoom range and weight. I now use 24-120 f4 plus a 12-24 DX for the majority of my stuff. using a D90 and D300. I only own one DX lens for wide angle stuff. I have waited for so long for the D700 replacement which was on imminent release for so long I've forgotten. There has never actually been any "imminent release" expected for a D700 replacement. That's letting your imagination get the best of you! Of course, in reality the D800 is simply going to blow your mind away! It will wipe clean all dreams based on a D700 in about the first 30 minutes you use one. My requirements have been for a full frame camera as I like the feel of the images. using some of my old manual Wide lenses, so much better than the 12-24 DX will ever produce. Okay, that's reasonable. (Heh, wait till you get a D800 and have 36MP of resolution to play with!) I have heaps of lenses including a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4.5 IF ED, in the long range also use a 500 5.6 Mamiya lens with a Zork adaptor. I hate carrying gear around nowdays, hence trying to consolidate what I do carry. My 80-200 f2.8 is heavy and slow in focusing. A wonderful old lense, eh? The AF-S version and the 70-200mm VR were not enough to get me to switch, but the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is enough of a leap forward that it was worth the price to set aside the 80-200mm. The 70-200mm is perhaps still heavier than you'd like, but the AF is greased lightening, and the sharpness is astounding. the 70-300 would encompass my requirements taking boat races, and lugging it around all day, weight wise. For boat races, I don't quite understand your stated need for fast AF and VR. Boat races don't need either! Note that VR doesn't have any benefit at all for most sports, simply because it corrects only for movement of the camera, and not subject movement. With any situation requiring a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion, VR should be turned off. Racing boats won't be quite the same as shooting hockey, gymnastics or basketball, but the shutter speeds required are still high enough to make VR pretty much insignificant. And racing boats don't really require super fast AF in most cases (but might in some, if you are right up close and want shots of the people as opposed to the boat). Instead of fast AF use the camera's ability to track moving subjects and predict where to focus prior to shutter release, along with continuous focus mode. Given that use (and granted that you may have other needs that have not been mention), I'd go with the 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII and either a TC-17E or TC-20E, and second choice would be an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D. Either of those will outperform a 70-300mm significantly, and take hugely better advantage of the D800's capability for higher resolution. The 80-400mm will cost significantly less but won't be as sharp in the 300-400mm focal length range which of course the 70-300mm doesn't even have. Yes, the 80-400 has slower AF, but that just doesn't affect anything if the camera is configured correctly. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is there a lens mount adapter for nikon d80 and seimar/rokunar lens? | mindspring | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | May 1st 07 11:19 AM |
Buying old lens : VIVITAR 58MM NIKON/ NIKKOR compatible MACRO/ ZOOM Lens | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 6th 06 05:56 AM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
{FA} Nikon HN-3 Lens Hood & Nikon Lens Caps | Wade-Saunders | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | September 14th 05 03:18 PM |