doghouse_reilly Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I am an owner of F75 Nikon body. I have the 20-80G lens and the 50/1.8 prime lens. I am looking for a good zoom lens so I can take impressive: portraits, animals photos and landscapes from afar. Unlikely I have budget limitations. That's why I have in mind th 70- 300G lens. I will be happy to hear comments, advice, and other suggestions, especially from people who own this lens and a similiar or almost- similiar camera body. Truely yours, DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I use it for auto racing: It's lightweight and sharp, but lacks an aperture ring. Since the N75 can control aperture, it's fine. I use it on an N6000 (F601m) and Fuji S1 Pro (built on an N60). Cheers! Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxz Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I own that one and the pictures are acceptable. I use it with my F80. It feels a little plastic but I think it is a nice one and it is very light. The best part is that it is so cheap that if I break it I can afford a new one :-) I have seen identical pictures taken side by side with this one and the more expensive 70-300ED IF. I could not see any significant difference on those prints (24x30 cm) between the lenses although I liked the ED version more for the feel. If you are going to buy a manual body in the future remember that this, like all G-lenses have no aperture ring. For me this is not a problem since if I can afford a new manual body this lens cost me so little that I can probably affort buying a second tele. Since you are on a budget I would recommend it, I find it good value for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_gifford Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 <<a good zoom lens so I can take impressive: portraits, animals photos and landscapes from afar. Unlikely I have budget limitations.>> Provided the people, animals and landscapes are well lit, the 70-300G will be okay. It does its best work for you at f/8 and f/11, which is why you need well-lit subjects. With a tripod the resulting slow shutter speeds are not often a problem. I have the D version (the G version is quite similar but doesn't incorporate ED glass elements, has no aperture ring, costs rather a LOT less and was introduced a year or two after I got mine). Expect autofocus to be fairly slow... the maximum aperture is f/5.6 over most of the zoom range so the autofocus system in your F75 doesn't get as much light through the 70-300G as it does with (for example) your 50 f/1.8 lens. The 28-80G and 70-300G zooms are remarkable values... for about $225 you cover a terrifically useful rannge of focal lengths and the images (at least in good light) are fine for 4x6 prints. When I first bought into the autofocus side of Nikon's system, back in the mid-1990s, the analogous pair of D lenses went 28-80 and 80-200 (not 300), and cost quite a bit more than $225 for the pair. That 28-80D was okay... and I think today's 28-80G and 28-100G are its cousins. But the 80-200D lens was fair-to-poor, and it led to a 70-245D (or something like that), and you don't hear many people lamenting the passing into history of THAT lens. So today's most budget-limited buyers get entry level zooms with better range, better performance and much lower cost. Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doghouse_reilly Posted February 26, 2004 Author Share Posted February 26, 2004 thank you all! that was very reassuring. - I would be happy if someone could attach a photo that he took with the AF 70-300G! Yours, DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charodiez Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Take a look at this two images I took using that lens. They were taken at 300mm, tripod and f-stop 19 (I think). Maybe the scanning is not too good... http://www.photo.net/photo/1730898 http://www.photo.net/photo/1753453 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 <html> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Vpe">Click here for a sample shot.</a> It might be the best photo I ever got with that lens. I'd only buy the G if its absolutely all you can afford. I replaced it with a used 75-300 for $200, which is much, much better. </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I used to have one. It's decent from 70 to 200mm, where it benefits from being stopped down to f/8, but beyond 200mm image quality degrades quite bit and I ended up shooting around f/11 to f/16. Still, I shot quite a few sport pictures at the long end and people were impressed about the smarpness of 8.5x11 enlargements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_park Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Ok weird. I have the F75 and the same two lenses as you plus to 70-300G. While it's obviously not the best lens, I love it. It's not very fast but it was all I could afford. This is the lens I leave on my camera all the time. I like it that much. Here's a lot of samples: http://mikepark.org/snodrift04/index.html Pretty much all but two or three of those I took with the 70-300G. I don't remember which weren't taken with it. -mjp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Forgot to mention. I also used to have a 28-80G. I found that the background blur of the 28-80 was harsh at the long end, whereas that of the 70-300G was very smooth at the short end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencer_hahn Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I had one for two years and initially I was pleased with it. But that was when I was 16 and stupid. After around 6 months I started having problems in my right eye and I fully attribute them to shooting through this lens at 300mm. It's still pretty weak to this day. I loathe few pieces of photographic equipment, but this is one I adamantly reject. If at all possible, DO NOT BUY THIS LENS! You'll understand later. Maybe you should consider a Sigma 70-300? However, the Nikkor G's seem to have very good resale value, so if you decide to sell in the future you will recoup much of the purchase price (or you can give away in disgust as I did). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armando j. heredia Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Here's a 70-300G shot with a D100 body. The lens is no slouch. http://www.photocrafter.net/Media/data/c81e728d9d4c2f636f067f89cc14862c/89_p740.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 It depends on how steady your hands are when shooting. Here is one example.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Why anyone would post a small JPG as proof that a certain lensperforms well is beyond me. Geralds photo looks great atthis size but nothing and I do mean nothing can be said for thelens base on such a small JPG. How much sharpening was used? Whenyou reduce a photo like his it will look dreadful if itsnot sharpened so Im not saying it should not be sharpenedjust that there is no reasonably object information here.<br><br>Post just the eye and mouth of the fish at full resolution withvery light sharpening if you want to give someone an honest ideaof the lens performance.<br><br>Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 One generally uses the 'Unsharp' filter for stuff posted on the Web, but what the heck do I know? A image is in focus and with good contrast first, then you can worry about the tricks to add via Photoshop. Photoshop is not going to make you a great photographer if you have no other skill(s) IMO. By the way, Photo Net has a thing about sending 'LARGE' images,which is not necessary to prove my thing is bigger than your thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 <em>"By the way, Photo Net has a thing about sending 'LARGE' images, which is not necessary to prove my thing is bigger than your thing." --Gerald W. Litynski<br> </em><br> First post the whole picture as you did then in a second post show a detail. This is done quite frequently. There is no other way other than posting a full resolution photo and then you are giving away prints at the cost of ink and paper. <br> <br> Your post above implies that this JPG is proof that the lens is sharp. It does not state that but it implies this. The photo is very well composed the exposure looks good, I'm glad I'm not the fish, etc. but it gives no indication of the sharpness of the lens. Its just too small and clearly heavily sharpened.<br> <br> I recommend trying something like this only at full resolution...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 One could scan it at 2,700 dpi (I guess) and see what happens, but Photo Net discourages anything of that size getting uploaded. Here is a 'bigger' sample (but I could not get the little squares like you did.....)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomade Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I use it for my F65. I could add that beeing plastic, makes it very light. That makes a nice companion when travelling, i.e. when weight counts. Also when shooting with the longest focal length, cause it's easier not to take shaked images. Sometimes it makes me want it to have more contrast, but I'm not really sure if it's the lens or something else. For some samples, go through my folder, much of my shots are made with that lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now