Nikon 70-300 G?

[compuwar]

I'm not prepared at this point to spring for a 400mm or longer.... I want to evaluate just how MUCH wildife and birding I'll be doing before I get into longer lengths.

If VR comes out on the 400 this year as rumored, I might be able to offer you a good deal on an AFS-II 400 😉

 

[Clix Pix]

If VR comes out on the 400 this year as rumored, I might be able to offer you a good deal on an AFS-II 400 😉

Alrighty, I'll keep that in mind! 😀 Of course, if Nikon does come out with VR on the 400 and/or 500, I might want to just spring for one of those myself.....

 

[Clix Pix]

Chris' post prompted me to go back to the original one which started this thread..... As he so rightly pointed out, a 300mm lens is not usually the one chosen for landscape photography, and even 70mm (especially on a digital camera) is not wide enough. A 70-300mm lens is also not a macro lens so isn't the best choice for shooting plants, either. Never having used the 70-300mm G version of this lens I have no idea of how closely it focuses but chances are that it's not going to be satisfactory if you are wanting to get really up close and personal with flowers and plants....for that you will need a dedicated macro lens. (By the way, the definition of "macro" means a 1:1 ratio) The 70-300mm lens, regardless of which version you choose, will be "OK," but in no way the kind of lens you would require for really specialized work such as landscapes and macro. Just something of which you should be aware before making the investment and then finding that you're disappointed when you do not get the results you were anticipating. As has been discussed in this thread, the three 70-300mm lenses which Nikon is offering each have disadvantages. Buying an extremely inexpensive lens will in the long run prove to be a mistake.

You want to shoot macro? Of the several lenses available for that, the 60mm is probably the least expensive. You can also go with using a set of diopter lenses or a set of tubes. You want to shoot landscapes? A good tripod and tripod head plus the 17-35mm or the 17-55mm lens will work well for that, or in some cases, the 12-24mm.... (all the lenses I mention are Nikon because that is what I have experience in using.)

The point here, and the point which Chris was trying to make, too, is that you may be very disappointed if you buy a 70-300mm lens and bring it home expecting it to do things which it just isn't designed to do.... It's not a wide-angle lens, it's not a landscape lens, it's not a macro lens.

What WILL it do well? I can only speak to the 70-300mm VR, which I have seen and actually handled as well as having seen and heard reviewers' and users' comments online and in person. It is a nice lens for grabbing shots within a fairly wide range; it's fairly sharp and fairly responsive in good light and apparently avoids some of the issues which were evident with the older two 70-300mm lenses. I think this would be a dandy travel lens or a nice take-to-the-zoo lens for a hobbyist, but it's not a lens which is going to get your images in magazines or on the cover of National Geographic.

Hope this helps clarify things for you....

 

[JeffTL]

To be clear, I was referring to landscape details; I've definitely encountered situations where a narrower field of view than a 55mm lens can provide would be most useful. For plants, true macros are somewhat out of my price range, but I have seen some good examples (as in coldrain's link to pbase.com) that suggest that the 70-300 is reasonably suited to botanical work.

Looking at those MTFs, it strikes me that the dropoffs on the 70-300 G should be mitigated somewhat by the digital sensor size. Always hard to tell about such things, though.

Definitely going to have to think on this one a bit more before I buy anything, though. Thanks for all the advice...the 55-200 is definitely a lot more in consideration now than it was when I first started.

 

[coldrain]

To be clear, I was referring to landscape details; I've definitely encountered situations where a narrower field of view than a 55mm lens can provide would be most useful. For plants, true macros are somewhat out of my price range, but I have seen some good examples (as in coldrain's link to pbase.com) that suggest that the 70-300 is reasonably suited to botanical work.

Looking at those MTFs, it strikes me that the dropoffs on the 70-300 G should be mitigated somewhat by the digital sensor size. Always hard to tell about such things, though.

Definitely going to have to think on this one a bit more before I buy anything, though. Thanks for all the advice...the 55-200 is definitely a lot more in consideration now than it was when I first started.

You are partly right in that the MTF charts for the 70-300G are for full frame, and that you will avoid the extreme fall-off of the edges.
But that does not make things all that rosy for that lens though. If you consider the APS-C size, you still come up with very low figures.
Sharpness for the 70-300G at 300mm, 0.64-0.5. If 1.0 is the resolution your camera can resolve... this lens limits that by almost a half.
In contast to the 55-200 Nikkor: its sharpness hovers around 0.8 with a dip to 0.69. That is not a subtle difference.
The Sigma 70-300 APO DG, according to the MTF chart: 0.83-0.77.

Contrast:
Nikkor 70-300 G: 0.83
Nikkor 55-200 DX: 0.95
Sigma 70-300 APO DG: 0.95-0.93

I know whichone I would avoid.

About your purpose for the lens: Even though the Sigma has just one year warranty, with its 1:2 macro ability (and its much better sharpness and contrast) it does seem to be the best option in this price range.

Now that I understand what you want to shoot with it ( I would not call that landscape photography) I do understand your choice of lens type. I myself make a LOT of photos like that, mostly with my Canon EF 70-200 f4 L, with or without 1.7x tele convertor.
Those two cost quite a lot more together than your intended budget of course. And at times, I bump into its limitations still, and wish I had a tele macro lens (I have a tamron 90mm f2.8 macro), like a Canon or Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro (a Nikon 200mmm macro will not AF on my Canon, unfortunately).

A short macro lens is not always the right tool, because you have to come close to the subject to make a photo. A very good macro lens does not have to be very expensive though. The Sigma 50mm f2.8 DG is as sharp as anything, good colour and contrast too, and under $250. A steal for such a lens.

So in view of your intended use and your budget, I still feel the Sigma will make you happiest. Otherwise, go for the 55-200 nikkor, and get a set of extension tubes to experiment with macro photography.

 

[EstorilM]

The ED version is so much more expensive that it must not be worth it. The "G" version must be worth $150 as long as it works and gets you shots from long distance (which it will). 😉 The differences you'll experience will not likely be in the sharpness of the lens (well, not a HUGE difference), but in the amount of chromatic abberation (CA), flare, and distortion you get from the lens. However, I'd think that CA and flare will be the biggest differences between the G lens and the other 2 expensive versions, while the difference between the ED and VR versions of the lens isn't in photo quality at all --- it's just the VR.

Oh, and you really can't shoot landscapes with a 70-300 mm lens. It's not nearly wide enough. Maybe if you want to shoot nature, maybe some leaves, small animals, etc.

ALL these lenses are slow. Yes, VR is useful because it makes the lens somewhat hand-holdable. However, it isn't worth its price for me, personally. What if the subject you want to photograph is moving? Your slow lens with VR is still going to produce soft pics. If you're shooting animals in a forest or sports in dark-lit stadiums, this will matter. Otherwise, ignore what I just said. 😛

I haven't checked the American prices (which are usually the best), but it's likely still expensive for what it is.... a lens that can go to 300 mm with f/5.6 aperture. If I were in the market for a Nikon telephoto, I'd try to find a used 80-200 mm f/2.8. It's a fast lens, will give you great bokeh, and is sturdy as hell. Only downside is that it's much heavier than a 70-300 mm G or VR lens, and you'd need at least a monopod.

In order of what I'd get from the info you gave me:

- 70-300 mm G lens.
- a Sigma 70-300 mm cheap lenses and read reviews and user reviews that compare performance.
- used 80-200 mm f/2.8
- new 80-200 mm f/2.8
- 70-300 mm VR

I agree with most of what you said, but the 80-200 lenses are easily hand-holdable, I do this all the time at sporting events and such. The weight actually makes it easier to hold the lens/camera more steadily, and I'm talking bigger camera bodies here too.

Also, as far as the 70-300 lenses go, there is a HUGE difference in the optics within the two lenses. The new VR (II I might add, which is second generation and offers a 4 stop advantage) has 17 elements in 12 groups, 2 of which are ED coated. The older one has 13 elements in 9 groups, none of which are ED optics. Even the 70-300 "ED" lens doesn't have ED elements, and has the same configuration, it's just built slightly better.

The new VRII lens also has a 9 blade aperture, which I'm 99% sure the older G and ED versions don't have (should help with bokeh and sharpness.)

I'd still muuuuuch rather have an 80-200.

 

[coldrain]

Also, as far as the 70-300 lenses go, there is a HUGE difference in the optics within the two lenses. The new VR (II I might add, which is second generation and offers a 4 stop advantage) has 17 elements in 12 groups, 2 of which are ED coated. The older one has 13 elements in 9 groups, none of which are ED optics. Even the 70-300 "ED" lens doesn't have ED elements, and has the same configuration, it's just built slightly better.

The new VRII lens also has a 9 blade aperture, which I'm 99% sure the older G and ED versions don't have (should help with bokeh and sharpness.)

I'd still muuuuuch rather have an 80-200.

The old ED version has one ED element. You can see the difference clearly in the MTF charts anyway, they are not the same lenses with one just being of better build quality. That both the G and ED underperform is another matter.
The new version with VR indeed has 2 ED elements, a big one near the front element has been added compared to what the old ED version had.

The OP clearly does not have the budget for a 80-200 f2.8, and do not underestimate the weight difference either.

 

[EstorilM]

The old ED version has one ED element. You can see the difference clearly in the MTF charts anyway, they are not the same lenses with one just being of better build quality. That both the G and ED underperform is another matter.
The new version with VR indeed has 2 ED elements, a big one near the front element has been added compared to what the old ED version had.

The OP clearly does not have the budget for a 80-200 f2.8, and do not underestimate the weight difference either.

Like I said, I routinely trek out into fields for sports stuff with an 80-200 on a D2Hs for the entire day and it doesn't bug me. Monopods limit my vertical range of motion too much (when panning.) If I was just shooting birds or something I wouldn't hesitate to use one (especially with the clip release on the 70-200VR.)

The used 80-200s (AF-D) are out there for ~400-500 bucks now. Even with a 2x teleconverter you'd have a 160-400 f/5.6, ie. the same aperture as the 70-300 at full zoom.

 

[JeffTL]

Thanks again for all the information, everyone.

Bearing all this in mind, along with the sample images I could find at pbase and my financial abilities, I have placed an order for the Nikon 70-300 G. I'll let you know how it turns out.