Nikon Glass

catweh00 · Mar 3, 2005

I am considering buying a new 70-300mm or longer lens for animal shots (at the cincy zoo). I was wondering if anyone thought it was worth it to pay $300 for nikon's ED glass versus $100 for the normal nikon 70-300 and other brands, which are even less expensive. I think sigma had a great 70-300 macro APO for 190.00. Let me know what you think.
Thanks
Craig
Remember, I am a beginner, not a pro, and my prints are usually 11x 14.

catweh00 · Mar 3, 2005

Also, would a 300mm prime be worth it? If I am shooting during the day, will I need a fast prime lens, or do you all typically use zoom lenses midday/early morning?
Thanks again,
Craig

AIRIC · Mar 3, 2005

Go for the Nikkor ED, it is not that expensive and if you want nice sharp shots it is your best bet for that price. I tried the Sigma at work and it was not sharp at the 300mm end and also had Vignetting (sp) . The Nikkor G lens feels very cheap and light and does not have ED glass.

You can cry once and spend a little more or cry twice when you go to replace the cheap lens from poor image quality.

Just my 2 Can cents,

Eric

railman44 · Mar 3, 2005

What Airic said. +1.

Contra|Brett| · Mar 3, 2005

I third that, but for at least 4 cents

kfoster · Mar 3, 2005

Four of a kind.

While the ED lens is not the best a 300mm, it is way better then that empty soda can G lens. The G lens is basically a kit lens for the N75 camera kit.

Personally I like the 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF. It is quite a bit more money but it way sharper and faster then any of the cheap 70-300mm. If your shooting at the zoo then you will be fairly close to the animals so 200mm may be good enough. But you may need the extra speed of a f/2.8 lens in order to get that action shot. Plus you can use a teleconveter to get out to 400mm at f/5.6, which is the same f stop as the 70-300mm lens at only 300mm.

Just so you know I own both the 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF and the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6D ED lenses. I am not giving a biased opinion on either lens. I use both regularly.

Just my Two Bits!

K

DocFrankenstein · Mar 3, 2005

I shoot canon, so didn't have the actual experience with the Nikon glass...

But I beleive you should buy the best lens you can afford. All the 70-300 or 75-300 zooms are slow and soft... the build isn't there... they are for consumers.

70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 is the lens you want.

It's well worth the money. If you can't spring for it, consider sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX... cheaper and also very good optics...

Cheers

craig · Mar 3, 2005

I am of the opinion "spend as much as possible on the glass". Since the glass forms the image; why skimp?

I would also look into gaining access to the cages as opposed to buying a long lens. I am now laughing out loud to my self.

Rob · Mar 4, 2005

As mentioned above f2.8 70-200 VR IF ED is a cracking lens and is infinitely better than the G or Sigma. I used to have one with my F100 and considered the cheaper options until I saw their results.

nikon90s · Mar 5, 2005

I have had an n90s for a few years now with sigma 70-200mm EX f/2.8 and they worked great.... UNTIL I got a D70 now I really don't like them that much and I have been saving for Nikon ED glass, it is going to cost me more now them if I would have waited a bit few years when I got the Sigma and went with the Nikon glass. I thought I was saving $$$ now it looks like I will be spending more. My point is get the best you can, Sigma is good but far from the best. 2nd place is the first looser....

airgunr · Mar 5, 2005

I'm with the others. So far I've only bought Nikkors and have been very happy. I'd rather wait and save up to afford one of them verses buying a cheaper one. I've always found the old saying is very true. You get what you pay for and when it comes to the glass for your camera it is probably the MOST important part.

Contra|Brett| · Mar 6, 2005

OK, Nikkors are great, and my prior post confirms my belief in that.
But, the 70-210 f/2.8 APO by sigma is a very nice lense, and on your d70 will be a 140-420 on your d70. Costs somewhere between 700 and 900, I don't remember the exact price. APO basically means that it is the nice glass, similar to ED.

Also to clear things up, Nikon is shifting more towards G lenses. Consider this, Nikon's most expensive lense is a G, and Nikon's cheapest lense is a G.

AIRIC · Mar 6, 2005

G only means it has no aperture ring, am I right?

Eric

rob1116 · Mar 6, 2005

AIRIC said:
G only means it has no aperture ring, am I right?

Eric

yup. The G suffix is applied to lenses that don't have aperature rings... until recently, Nikon only produce G-versions of thier inexpensive models.

If a fast prime and the sweet 70-200 f/2.8ED VR Nikon are definitely out of your price range, a definite step up from the flimsy (to put it nicely) Nikon 70-300G non-ED would be a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6LD. I would wager you'd be hard pressed to see a noticable difference in image quality from the 70-300ED Nikon outside the lab... and at a signicantly lower price. At the very least, buy this over the standard Nikon 70-300mm G non-ED.... imo.

mmm... damn I want that 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR... or maybe the 200-400 f/4!

spiralout · Mar 7, 2005

From what I hear, the 70-300 ED is junk. The discontinued 75-300D is an amazing lens. You can find it on eBay every once in a while, and the winning auction is usually $250 or so. Just a suggestion.