Nikkor AF 70-300 f4-5.6G

[NineEleven]

I was looking for a lighter & smaller 80-200+/- lens lately for daytime walkabout & did some research. Ken Rockwell has reviews on all the Nikon made in these range. I almost bought an old 80-90s 70-300 but the AF was slow.

Anyway, I have an older Sigma 80-200 HSM F2.8 non-Macro & just bought the Nikkor 70-300ED for less than $500. The Sigma's not too bad & I'm still testing the 70-300ED F4-5.6, colour's not too great & bokeh is not easy to get as it's not fast but good range though. I used my 105 AFD micro to shoot the similar subjects & it's definitely sharper.

I'm also considering a Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AFD but lens is very heavy & they are big (I think it's wiser to use the tripod collar) & it's about S$1.1-1.6K. The AFS 2 touch is slightly under $2K used & about $2.7K new.

If you're on a budget, don't worry too much about non-VR & slow lens now. The good ISO of your D700 will compensate for the slow & non-VR lens. Enjoy shooting first & u can always sell the cheap lens for more or less what you paid for

 

[kervin13]

thx guys, seems that the cheaper 70-300 will be the final answer, at least for now..
Appreciate all the inputs guys.. Cheers and enjoy the excitement of photo-taking..

 

[Kooger]

thx guys, seems that the cheaper 70-300 will be the final answer, at least for now..
Appreciate all the inputs guys.. Cheers and enjoy the excitement of photo-taking..

Having owned most of these lenses, I'd say go with Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED or even the Nikon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF or Manual Focus Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E. Keep your hands away from the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Though it's cheaper, you'll find that you'll have to sell it faster than you get it. You just won't be satisfied after being spoilt by the 24-70mm. You can't go too wrong with the sharper, solid built older Nikon lenses.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I used my 105 AFD micro to shoot the similar subjects & it's definitely sharper.

If anyone has expectation that a telezoom is able to achieve sharpness of AFD105 micro (or worse AFS105 micro) you will be in for a real treat. You are comparing against some of the sharpest lens in the Nikon range, I doubt even the f/2.8 zooms would be able to get anywhere near this level of sharpness.

Anyone found a zoom as sharp as the 105 micro nikkors please report back. I want to know.

If you're on a budget, don't worry too much about non-VR & slow lens now. The good ISO of your D700 will compensate for the slow & non-VR lens. Enjoy shooting first & u can always sell the cheap lens for more or less what you paid for

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Having owned most of these lenses, I'd say go with Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED or even the Nikon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF or Manual Focus Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E. Keep your hands away from the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Though it's cheaper, you'll find that you'll have to sell it faster than you get it. You just won't be satisfied after being spoilt by the 24-70mm. You can't go too wrong with the sharper, solid built older Nikon lenses.

:thumbsup:

Should definitely stretch that $100 plus to get the ED version. Saving for the f/2.8 I would not say is wise, long time to wait, lots of cash to save, and extremely heavy lenses. But stretching to get the ED version is wise.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Just curious, how come the 70-300 VR version is much more expensive compare to non VR? :think:

History of the range:

Long long time ago 75-300mm. Not sure of the pricing.

Long time ago 70-300ED. 75-300mm retired from service. I bought my ED version at about S$500, think around 1998.

Not so long ago 70-300G. 70-300ED sold alongside G version. Lens formula appeared identical, except for the ED element. Other change is the lens mount - plastic vs metal. G version is for the consumer market, price is king.

Recent past 70-300VR. 70-300ED retired from service. Price you can check from price list.

So here you have it, the higher price for VR reflect it's true value, and that it replaced a $500 ED lens. Add cost of SWM and VR modules, and development cost it is similar in cost with the ED lens.

The 70-300G is cheap - initial development cost covered by ED version, and 90% of lens elements are the same (except the ED lens element) - tooling, molding taken care of, cheap construction with plastic, consumer aim means low price (low margin, larger number of sale).

 

[NineEleven]

If anyone has expectation that a telezoom is able to achieve sharpness of AFD105 micro (or worse AFS105 micro) you will be in for a real treat. You are comparing against some of the sharpest lens in the Nikon range, I doubt even the f/2.8 zooms would be able to get anywhere near this level of sharpness.

Anyone found a zoom as sharp as the 105 micro nikkors please report back. I want to know.

:bigeyes: How about 200 F4 Micro? Sampled a used one briefly from a friend. Another "brick" of a lens. :bsmilie: said to be one of the sharpest ever made & quite rare with a permanent? tripod collar.

History of the range:

Long long time ago 75-300mm. Not sure of the pricing.

Long time ago 70-300ED. 75-300mm retired from service. I bought my ED version at about S$500, think around 1998.

Not so long ago 70-300G. 70-300ED sold alongside G version. Lens formula appeared identical, except for the ED element. Other change is the lens mount - plastic vs metal. G version is for the consumer market, price is king.

Recent past 70-300VR. 70-300ED retired from service. Price you can check from price list.

So here you have it, the higher price for VR reflect it's true value, and that it replaced a $500 ED lens. Add cost of SWM and VR modules, and development cost it is similar in cost with the ED lens.

The 70-300G is cheap - initial development cost covered by ED version, and 90% of lens elements are the same (except the ED lens element) - tooling, molding taken care of, cheap construction with plastic, consumer aim means low price (low margin, larger number of sale).

:thumbsup: Very knowledgeable info here.

I found quite a few old those old lenses in Peninsular shops & they are about S$250-$450 "only" but the older lenses appear darker through the viewfinder & AF is slow (can always switch to use manual) One even had macro. They are all made in Japan & well made but check the glasses on haze, dis-colour etc.

Otherwise can also consider the 80-400 VR which is under S$2K new. But F stops open till 4/5.

About those AFS lenses. You guys got to be careful on maintenance, the motor seizes due to wear & tear which will cost about $800 to repair by Nikon. :sticktong You can get dealers to send in & hope for some discount.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

:bigeyes: How about 200 F4 Micro? Sampled a used one briefly from a friend. Another "brick" of a lens. :bsmilie: said to be one of the sharpest ever made & quite rare with a permanent? tripod collar.

That's not a telezoom.

Yes the AFD 200mm f/4 micro nikkor is probably sharper than the AFD 105mm micro nikkor at non-macro distances, and likely to be comparable to AFS 105mm micro nikkor.

 

[newkon]

Can Nikkor AF 70-300 f4-5.6G auto focus with nikon d700??
SOry for asking such a silly question, and does it worth the price, around 200+ singapore dollar??
Realize that 70-200 f2.8 will be the best, but kinda at a tight budget..
thx for the time and reply.. appreciate..

Same position as you TS. Was reading the thread with a lot of interest. Read more from these sites.
ED lens - http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/122/cat/13
AF-S VRII lens - http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13 & http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm
Sigma - http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/230/cat/31
Tamron - http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/455/cat/23

At the end of the day I chose the Nikkor lens with VR cos I could use it on my D40 too since it has a SWM. However its good the stay within your budget. If its the G for now then give it a try.

 

[kervin13]

thx,.. anyway, i haven't decide which will i get..
but most likely, i'll follow most of the recommendations to get the vr..
Actually at the moment, my savings allow me to bought the vr, but currently i'm thinking either to bought the 70-300 vr or 105 macro, or a flash (sb-900).
i'd like to have three of them, but my budget only allow me to choose 1, so which one should i get first??
looks forward for u guys ideas, kinda on a dilemma, n unsure what to do..

 

[zac08]

thx,.. anyway, i haven't decide which will i get..
but most likely, i'll follow most of the recommendations to get the vr..
Actually at the moment, my savings allow me to bought the vr, but currently i'm thinking either to bought the 70-300 vr or 105 macro, or a flash (sb-900).
i'd like to have three of them, but my budget only allow me to choose 1, so which one should i get first??
looks forward for u guys ideas, kinda on a dilemma, n unsure what to do..

I'd say a flash first, if your mainstay is the 24-70...