High-Power Zoom lens

[loves_guitar]

Hey all,

I'm wanting to buy a high power zoom lens (i have a 18-70mm and a 50mm). I would like something that gives me the next level, e.g. 70-300mm.
I was looking around on the Nikon site (canadian) and came across this lens:
http://www.nikon.ca/products/af-zoom-70-300g/

Anyone use it? Like it? Hate it? Is there something better.

BTW, I'm using a D70s.

Thanks.

 

[Big Mike]

Most companies make something similar. I have a Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 USM lens. It's an OK lens...not great though...but it's affordable.

They are pretty good when it's bright out...but they are quite slow at F4-5.6. That makes it hard to get a usable shutter speed.

Is there something better? Absolutely...but you will have to pay for it. The 'best' telephoto zooms are probably the 70-200 F2.8 with VR (or IS on Canon)...but those will cost an arm and a two legs.

 

[fmw]

My rule of thumb is never buy a zoom with a range of more than 3X. The design requirements to overcome the compromises are just too difficult. Most of the photographic community will disagree with me but I'll stick to my guns with that statement.

Personally, I use an old 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor zoom for a 35mm camera that is heavy and large and expensive but it makes stunning photographs. I would bet the one Big Mike suggests would do the same.

My advice on lenses is to get the best you can get, even if it means waiting for a while for the one you really want.

 

[dsp921]

Hey all,

I'm wanting to buy a high power zoom lens (i have a 18-70mm and a 50mm). I would like something that gives me the next level, e.g. 70-300mm.
I was looking around on the Nikon site (canadian) and came across this lens:
http://www.nikon.ca/products/af-zoom-70-300g/

Anyone use it? Like it? Hate it? Is there something better.

BTW, I'm using a D70s.

Thanks.

I had it for about 3 days, gave it away. There are plenty of lenses that are better, a lot better. The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 comes to mind. You should probably say what your budget is, that'll make a big difference in recommendations. What you want to shoot would help as well, sports, wildlife, etc....

 

[Glimmerman]

You might want to wait for just a little while, Nikon is releasing a new lense shipping maybe this week, basically the same lense as above, but with VR for $669 canadian.

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=226702

This is the lense I am waiting for. Once it is reviewed, I will decide whether to get it or not.

 

[dsp921]

You might want to wait for just a little while, Nikon is releasing a new lense shipping maybe this week, basically the same lense as above, but with VR for $669 canadian.

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=226702

This is the lense I am waiting for. Once it is reviewed, I will decide whether to get it or not.

VR or not, if it isn't optically much better than the current G and ED versions pass on it...

Edit: Just saw that Nikon Japan is saying a December 7th release...

 

[Glimmerman]

Depends on your intended use. If you are a consumer, then a consumer lense will probably work fine for you. There are many happy users of the G and ED versions of 70-300s.

If you are shooting professionally, you probably wouldn't be asking this question and would already have bought an f2.8 zoom telephoto.

Like I said wait for the reviews of the 70-300G VR. It might be a steal for the price, we don't know yet.

The regular G is so cheap, can't go too wrong learning on it, then decide if you want to spend 10 times or more on a faster, better lense or not.

Darn it, not until December now? Oh well as long as it is ready for x-mas that is ok with me. Nikon really seems to be sucking at delivery of lenses. You would think they would have been able to ramp up production on the 18-200 by now too.

 

[fmw]

VR or not, if it isn't optically much better than the current G and ED versions pass on it...

Edit: Just saw that Nikon Japan is saying a December 7th release...

In theory there is some performance loss in a lens design that features VR. Truthfully, I've never owned or used a VR lens. But I thought I would post an image here that I made on Sunday. This was shot handheld with my 80-200 f2.8 zoom cranked all the way out to 200mm. It isn't an awe inspring image but I think you will agree that if there is any camera shake visible it is very minor. No VR. Just concentrate on holding it steady.

 

[Glimmerman]

How does the theory go that a lense with VR will reduce optical performance, I have not heard of that, although it could very well be correct.

Now if you were taking your above picture in lower light, VR would have helped, no?

 

[loves_guitar]

I don't want to break the bank. I would just like something with more zoom than what I've got now. I'm not at the professional level yet, but getting there.

 

[fmw]

How does the theory go that a lense with VR will reduce optical performance, I have not heard of that, although it could very well be correct.

Now if you were taking your above picture in lower light, VR would have helped, no?

So would a tripod. I'm not sure what the science is behind the lens design issue. I know that when Canon introduced the IS lenses, some of my colleagues who used Canon thought the non-IS lenses were a little better. I know a couple who bought long telephotos with IS and sold them soon afterward to go back to the older designs.

I asked NPS about the technology and their answer was that designing that technology into a lens compromised optical performance in some ways and Nikon had no interest in it. They gave me some details but I've forgotten them.

Of course, they had interest in it after the pros badgered them to death and threatened to switch to Canon. Nikon has always been really careful and slow about adopting technology. They are as conservative as Canon is innovative.

It's possible that those issues have been resolved in recent iterations of the design. I don't know. It was a new technology when I was looking into in in the 90's. It might be mature enough to be perfected these days.

 

[Glimmerman]

Found some info that you can get more flare with a VR/IS lense.

Also read some people have issues with it because after your warranty runs out, servicing them might be expensive because local shops might not have access to the parts, not sure if that is the reality or not though.

Yes a tripod would of course help more than VR. I want VR because I know I won't carry a tripod everywhere, (such as travelling, or hiking, or just walking your dog at the dog park) and in those cases VR can be very handy. I would think other people are in a similar boat.

 

[fmw]

Found some info that you can get more flare with a VR/IS lense.

Also read some people have issues with it because after your warranty runs out, servicing them might be expensive because local shops might not have access to the parts, not sure if that is the reality or not though.

Yes a tripod would of course help more than VR. I want VR because I know I won't carry a tripod everywhere, (such as travelling, or hiking, or just walking your dog at the dog park) and in those cases VR can be very handy. I would think other people are in a similar boat.

So would I, Glimmer. I have no issues with taking advantage of technology. I was just suggesting that you can make sharp images without the technology. You just have to be more aware and more careful.

 

[Glimmerman]

Love Guitar, when you say won't break the bank, its relative, some people's piggy banks are a lot larger than others.

For $189 canadian the Nikon G can't be too bad to learn on for now.
Bump up to $350ish for a Sigma and it can do macro too
Bump up to 670 and wait, you can get VR
above that is quite a jump, 1200+

Or look at used, although I cannot find many deals on AF Nikons they just dont sit around for long, and fetch high enough prices I would rather buy new


Are you willing to try a manual focus lense? You could look for Vivitar series 1 version 3 70-210's then, and other optically good manual lenses.

 

[boclcown]

I understand that the more you pay, the better quality you get. But I won't be convinced that $800+ is really worth the extra 2 stops and slightly better optical quality.

Maybe if someone posted comparisons....(hint, hint)