Professional Web Applications Themes

Difference between lenses (Nikon) - Photography

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 ...

  1. #1

    Default 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
    net


    Sheldon Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    Sheldon <net> wrote:
     

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

    http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/af_70-300mmf4-56g.htm
    http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/ai_af_ed_70-300mmf4-56d.htm

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

    Andrew.
    andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    <invalid> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... 
    >
    > Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
    > page:
    >
    >[/ref]
    http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/af_70-300mmf4-56g.htm 
    http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/ai_af_ed_70-300mmf4-56d.htm 

    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.


    Sheldon Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    ''D'' type is sharper at the edges.
    "Sheldon" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >>
    >> Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
    >> page:
    >>
    >>[/ref]
    > http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/af_70-300mmf4-56g.htm 
    > http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/telephoto/ai_af_ed_70-300mmf4-56d.htm 
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >[/ref]


    Witek Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)


    "Witek" <ca> wrote in message
    news:gBVMd.272138$.. 

    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
    net



    Sheldon Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    "Sheldon" <net> writes:
     

    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, <mailto:net>, <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/>
    David Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    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_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_70_300mm_f_4_5 _6G_Autofocus_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)

    Kitt Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:31:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    "Sheldon" <net> wrote:
     
    >
    >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?[/ref]

    Seems to have a mediocre rating at
    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    Sheldon <net> wrote:
     

    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
    Ken Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)


    "David Dyer-Bennet" <net> wrote in message
    news:dd-b.net... [/ref]
    the [/ref]
    expensive [/ref]
    the [/ref]
    not [/ref]
    that [/ref]
    even [/ref]
    result 
    >
    > 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.[/ref]

    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


    Sheldon Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    "Ed Ruf" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    > >
    > >The cheaper lens is a G type lens. Aside from the fact that it doesn't[/ref][/ref]
    have [/ref]
    lens [/ref]

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

    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.


    Sheldon Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)


    "Kitt" <com> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 
    http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Nikon_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_70_300mm_f_4_5 _6G_Autofocus_Lens_Black 

    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 


    Sheldon Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    In article <com>,
    Sheldon <net> wrote: 

    [ ... ]
     
    >
    >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.[/ref]

    Which may or may not be a problem, depending on the nature of
    your photography. If you are photographing stationary objects, with
    plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
    histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
    lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
    built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
    typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
    metering in the camera.

    I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
    conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
    says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
    by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
    one.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.

    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    Sheldon wrote:
     


    On a sunny day that would be any reciprocal of Sunny-16.
    Except if the subject is getting light reflected from the snow, then
    close 1/2 to 1 stop.

    On a very thin cloud or heavy haze day that would be 1 stop open from there.

    On a light cloudy day open an other stop.

    Under a heavy overcast, another stop.

    I'd surprised if he was ever wrong at all.

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)


    "DoN. Nichols" <com> wrote in message
    news:cu46or$nr8$d-and-d.com... 
    >
    > [ ... ]

    >>
    >>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.[/ref]
    >
    > Which may or may not be a problem, depending on the nature of
    > your photography. If you are photographing stationary objects, with
    > plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
    > histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
    > lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
    > built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
    > typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
    > metering in the camera.
    >
    > I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
    > conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
    > says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
    > by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
    > one.
    >
    > Enjoy,
    > DoN.[/ref]

    I saw his list, and apparently he sticks with it. I just don't understand
    why there wasn't a way to just use the meter with these older lenses without
    all the other bells and whistles. On that particular lens the one ring for
    both focus and zoom is fantastic, and I hate where they place the manual
    focus ring on the new autofocus lenses. I guess they figure nobody wants to
    focus by hand anymore. Autofocus is great, but I could live without it for
    a handful of specialty lenses. Just give me a behind the lens meter

    Sheldon


    Sheldon Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:11:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    "Sheldon" <net> wrote: 

    Have you actually tried to manually focus at a distance at 400mm at max
    aperture with the D70? It can be very tough. The focusing screen on the D70
    is not very helpful.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)


    "Ed Ruf" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > Have you actually tried to manually focus at a distance at 400mm at max
    > aperture with the D70? It can be very tough. The focusing screen on the
    > D70
    > is not very helpful.[/ref]

    Actually, I replaced all the screens on my old Nikons with clear centers. I
    hated the "helpful" screens as they blocked the center of view. Also, even
    though I have to focus the lens manually when I use a non AF lens, it still
    seems to read focus and tell you if you are locked on. Same green dot comes
    up when you are focused within a focus area.

    While I used to shoot a lot of sports, the kit lens seems to cover most of
    my needs now. I do have a micro lens, and that will focus way, way down,
    but I have to use a meter and figure on a slight increase in exposure to
    compensate. Of course, when you use a Micro or Macro lens, the subject is
    rarely moving.


    Sheldon Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:25:23 +0200, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ken
    Tough <co.uk> wrote: 

    The 70-200mm VR is stellar by itself quite good with a TC. I'm using the
    2x.
     

    I believe you'll be waiting a very long time VR != cheap!
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    In article <cu5c0i$43i$gazeta.pl>,
    Alan Browne- <ca> wrote: 
    >
    >
    >On a sunny day that would be any reciprocal of Sunny-16.
    >Except if the subject is getting light reflected from the snow, then
    >close 1/2 to 1 stop.
    >
    >On a very thin cloud or heavy haze day that would be 1 stop open from there.
    >
    >On a light cloudy day open an other stop.
    >
    >Under a heavy overcast, another stop.
    >
    >I'd surprised if he was ever wrong at all.[/ref]

    Quite. That's how I learned (with the Agfa fold-out my father used),
    although we did have a hand-held Weston to check.

    The advantage of automatic exposure modes is that they can adjust the
    exposure as your subject moves from shadow to sunlight, or vice-versa.
    That's sometimes important to me (I mostly shoot motorsports).

    John Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Difference between lenses (Nikon)

    In article <com>,
    Sheldon <net> wrote: 

    [ ... ]
     
    >
    >I saw his list, and apparently he sticks with it.[/ref]

    Actually -- not always. The 80-200mm is on the list (or at
    least it was), but he no longer converts these lenses.
     

    There *is* -- on the N90s. Note that while on the D70 there is
    a single sensor for the tab which says that the lens is fully stopped
    down, on the N90s (and presumably others, but this is the one which I
    know of the later cameras), there is a second tab, which rotates through
    about 60 degrees, starting from about half-way between the TDC of the
    lens mount ring and the index mark for inserting the lens. While the
    other simply verifies that the lens is fully stopped down, this one
    tells the camera exactly *which* aperture you are set to.

    The alternative is to allow stopping the lens down while
    metering, and that also seems to require a CPU-equipped lens just to do
    the depth-of-field preview stopdown on the D70. (And to take some
    charge out of the battery as well.)

    Some features from the N90s which it would have been nice to
    retain, but that would have made it cost more, and I might still be
    using the N90s as converted by Kodak to digital for the AP (NC2000e/c).
    The camera body was nice, but he conversion make it *quite* heavy. :-)
     

    Amen.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nikon lenses?
    By Michael in forum Photography
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 8th, 03:13 PM
  2. What does 'IF' stand for on Nikon lenses?
    By paul in forum Photography
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 5th, 02:40 PM
  3. What AF Nikon to accept old AI or AI'd lenses
    By Lazarus in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 28th, 09:11 PM
  4. Nikon AF lenses---Are they AIS?
    By Ken Rosenbaum in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 17th, 08:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139