Difference between lenses (Nikon)

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and the
other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more expensive
one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

As an aside, I currently have an older Nikon 80-200 f 4.5, the one with the
focus and zoom on one ring, AI conversion (weighs a ton). While I would not
be able to use all the functions on my D70 with this lens, it just means
having to use a meter, and I can't see myself even using this lens all that
much. Would just using the older lens be a better option optically, even
though it's a bit of a hassle? When used with my old 35mm camera the result
are stunning, but I have not done a comparison between both lenses.

The problem I seem to have is that I got the D70 so I could use my older
lenses, but having bought the kit I can see the advantages of autofocus and
using all the other gizmos that come with a CPU lens on the camera, even
though I wouldn't use the longer lenses all that much. (I used to shoot
sports exclusively -- for a living.) Now I just want good photos.

Thanks for any and all imput.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100
and the other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the
more expensive one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
page:

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/produ...00mmf4-56g.htm
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/produ...00mmf4-56d.htm

The big differnce is that one has an aperture ring and the other
doesn't.

Andrew.

wrote in message
...
Sheldon wrote:

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100
and the other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the
more expensive one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
page:


http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/produ...00mmf4-56g.htm

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/produ...00mmf4-56d.htm

The big differnce is that one has an aperture ring and the other
doesn't.

Andrew.

Well, one is an AI lens, so I assume you could use that one with older
cameras. Still, I always thought the ED lenses were supposed to be better.

"Witek" wrote in message
news:gBVMd.272138$8l.109765@pd7tw1no...
''D'' type is sharper at the edges.

The cheaper lens is a G type lens. Aside from the fact that it doesn't have
an aperture ring, would I get the same quality images with this cheaper lens
as I am with the ED lens that came with my D70? I can't believe there's a
$200 difference between the lenses, and that I can get a Nikon zoom lens
"new" for around $100. There has to be a catch. What is it?

The lens that comes with the kit (the one that I have) has no aperture ring
and is an ED lens. The idea of having another zoom lens that picks up where
the kit lens leaves off is very tempting.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" writes:

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and the
other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more expensive
one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

As an aside, I currently have an older Nikon 80-200 f 4.5, the one with the
focus and zoom on one ring, AI conversion (weighs a ton). While I would not
be able to use all the functions on my D70 with this lens, it just means
having to use a meter, and I can't see myself even using this lens all that
much. Would just using the older lens be a better option optically, even
though it's a bit of a hassle? When used with my old 35mm camera the result
are stunning, but I have not done a comparison between both lenses.

You don't need a separate meter -- just some willingness to
experiment, and look at the histograms. That's slower but produces
much better exposures than "auto", of course.

I still use a bunch of my manual-focus lenses, all fast primes as it
turns out :-). I find it worth it. But then I spent a lot of time
photographing with a Leica M3 years ago -- no meter. And didn't have
program auto-exposure in *any* camera until 1994. I got used to
keeping track of the exposures around the area I was working in in my
head.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

I have one and I really can't give you a comment yet, since I've only
used it once, but it works fine. Here's what some others say:

http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Nikon_Zo...cus_Lens_Black

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

I've found the kit lens to be ideal for most of my needs and haven't
played with this one yet. I guess I'm also jumpy about changing lenses
too frequently and encountering the much discussed dust problem. ;o)

Sheldon wrote:

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and the
other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more expensive
one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

Many people seem to say the ED is worth it in comments here, but
most reviews I see on the net say it isn't worth it, and optically
they're both the same, nothing to write home about. Personally,
I'm hoping Nikon will make an ED VR f4.5- EF-S in that range, but
until that happens I'm seriously considering getting the G just
to tide me over. How bad can it be, and in bright light the 300mm
(for us old 35mm types, FOV of a 450mm) would be cool. For $100,
it's worth it just to try it, I'd think. I did chase the 70-210
which Ken Rockwell recommends, but only found one used at a dealer,
and that was sold on. Seeing as all my old lenses have fungus
inside, I'd be hesitant to buy an old one anyway.. even just a
tiny bit of contamination will make an old lens worse than this
new one. My advice: go with the $100 one, and hope for a cheap
VR version in the future.

--
Ken Tough

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Sheldon" writes:

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and
the
other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more
expensive
one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

As an aside, I currently have an older Nikon 80-200 f 4.5, the one with
the
focus and zoom on one ring, AI conversion (weighs a ton). While I would
not
be able to use all the functions on my D70 with this lens, it just means
having to use a meter, and I can't see myself even using this lens all
that
much. Would just using the older lens be a better option optically,
even
though it's a bit of a hassle? When used with my old 35mm camera the
result
are stunning, but I have not done a comparison between both lenses.

You don't need a separate meter -- just some willingness to
experiment, and look at the histograms. That's slower but produces
much better exposures than "auto", of course.

I still use a bunch of my manual-focus lenses, all fast primes as it
turns out :-). I find it worth it. But then I spent a lot of time
photographing with a Leica M3 years ago -- no meter. And didn't have
program auto-exposure in *any* camera until 1994. I got used to
keeping track of the exposures around the area I was working in in my
head.

When I was working the pro ski circuit, one of the guys would wet his finger
and stick it up in the air, like checking for wind, and then announce to us
all the proper exposure. Damn if he wasn't right almost every time. Never
saw him use a meter.

Histogram idea is a good one. Thanks.

Sheldon

"Ed Ruf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:31:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Sheldon" wrote:


"Witek" wrote in message
news:gBVMd.272138$8l.109765@pd7tw1no...
''D'' type is sharper at the edges.

The cheaper lens is a G type lens. Aside from the fact that it doesn't
have
an aperture ring, would I get the same quality images with this cheaper
lens
as I am with the ED lens that came with my D70? I can't believe there's
a
$200 difference between the lenses, and that I can get a Nikon zoom lens
"new" for around $100. There has to be a catch. What is it?

Seems to have a mediocre rating at
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html

They certainly like my old 80-200. I guess it's a classic now. Could be a
much better bet than going with the new AF lens. Just have to use it in
manual mode.

"Kitt" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have one and I really can't give you a comment yet, since I've only
used it once, but it works fine. Here's what some others say:


http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Nikon_Zo...cus_Lens_Black

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

I've found the kit lens to be ideal for most of my needs and haven't
played with this one yet. I guess I'm also jumpy about changing lenses
too frequently and encountering the much discussed dust problem. ;o)

While my main lens will probably be the kit lens, which gets excellent
reviews and covers most situations, being squeamish about changing lenses
kind of defeats the purpose of having a camera with interchangeable lenses.

I'd be interested in a posting after you've had a chance to play with it
more.

Thanks.

Sheldon