Zoom for N75 ???

I'm just a rookie so forgive me for my illiteracy. I bought a Nikon

N75 2 months ago with a Quantaray 3.5-5.6 28-90mm AF Zoom lens. Now

I think I want to buy a 300mm zoom... What would you recommend me? I

usually take pictures of pretty much everything but i do like

downtowns especially, because i like the atmosphere, randomness and

the contradictory views of the life in them. Well I need help :)

If you want a long zoom that goes to 300mm, the only lens I would recommend (apart from the terribly expensive Sigma 120-300 F/2.8) is the Nikkor 70-300 F/4-5.6ED. That's an "ED" in the end, not a "G"! In this category, I wouldn't consider anything else, but even this lens is pretty bad at 300mm. If you can live with 200mm, then you have many nice choices of 70-200 or 80-200 lenses.

By the way, for cityscapes, I don't think there's a need for that long lens. I think a larger aperture lens in the normal range would do you more help than another slow but longer lens. In the beginning, I used to believe it is only possible to take cool pictures with lenses longer than 120mm, but now I don't use anything longer than 105mm. Anyway, I agree that you should experiment with different focal lengths, you might like the longer ones, but just so you know, it is much easier to live without them than you would imagine now (ok, not if you shoot wildlife or sports).

What's your budget?

 

With unlimited budget, I'd go for a 70-200VR with a 300/4 (we're talking of almost $3000 here).

 

The next choice would be a 80-200/2.8 (or even an off-brand 70-200 or 80-200/2.8) with a 1.4x teleconverter, for about $1000.

 

Now, going for a reasonable budget, the lens you really want is a used 75-300/4.5-5.6. it is sharp, with little distortion, little falloff, very well-build, with a tripod collar. Keh has an Ex+ one for $199, and it doesn't get much better than that without spending a lot more (and it gets much worse if you want to spend any less).

 

I'd stay away from the 70-300, both D and G, I've owned a G for a long while, wasn't satisfied with it, did a side-by-side comparison of the G and D and the D was barely better, definitely not enough to justify its higher price. I also used to own a 80-200/4.5-5.6, which was OK, better than either 70-300, and especially convenient as it was tiny, but it doesn't fill the bill for you if you want 300mm.

 

Just don't be surprised, in the telephoto world there's very little substitute for a good prime lens, and those are expensive. If a 300/2.8 sells for $4400 and people buy it, it's because it's that much better than lenses that cost 5, 10 20 or 40 times less.

I'm with Oliver on this one... get the Nikkor AF-D ED 70-300 zoom. I understand what Jean-Baptiste was saying but my experience was precisely opposite his: I had the 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 autofocus lens and it gave me much less contrast and notably inferior sharpness to the D-series 70-300. I'm not saying Jean-Baptiste is wrong; I am sure he accurately described his own experiences with those lenses. Mine just differ from his.

 

Some people also say the G-series 70-300 lens works fine for them. I do not have any experience with that one. Its most attractive feature is the price, since you can get one from the good mail-order places in New York for about $100 or so. The D-series lens with its ED glass is a little more expensive, at $250-$300.

 

Have fun,

Jim: I guess that we have proof that there's enough sample-to-sample variation at this price level to make it hard to compare lens designs, and to make such comparisons mostly irrelevant...

 

(It could very well be that the 70-300ED I tested was bad, and that my 80-200 was good - I don't have any of those lenses any more, and I'm very happy with a Canon 70-200/4L).

I really appreciate all of you guys. I guess I forgot to tell the budget though. I really like Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6D ED but they are almost $300. And I only can spend at most $180 or the top $200. I might still go with the Quantaray, same brand as my 28-90mm but I really needed some experienced people's advices. Thanks a lot again.

Does any of you think Quantarays are not good in long lenses? Because I think the 28-90mm one is doing just fine.

Regardly,

Kerem Can Suer

If you re-read Jean-Baptiste's note you'll see he pointed you to a nice alternate at $1 less than your budget ceiling.

 

If you really want a new lens, not a used one... at $200 or less you have a Nikon G lens to look into, plus Quantaray, Sigma, Tamron. Any of those would be okay. None of them will be terrific, but the sad truth is when you want 300mm glass, "terrific" starts at about $1,000 or so and goes up, up, up from there.

 

-Jim

I used to have a 70-300G Nikkor. That's what I would buy for your N75. It's not too heavy and it balances well on it, and, for the price, it's a lot of bang for the buck. I've used both the G and D versions of this lens, and, I'll be darned if I can't tell any difference in the pictures, and they aren't bad. Look, it's a zoom, so it's not going to be razor sharp at 300mm, but it's certainly a very handy thing to have. Now, don't think you can just stand there and point & shoot when your focal length is much more than 105 or so. Using longer focal lengths requires more deliberate shooting, using some kind of support to steady the camera, if not a tripod. Plus, 300mm magnifies everything that's in the atmosphere between you and the subject, and it also magnifies any camera shake, so, that's often a source of softness or lack of contrast in long zoom shots, no matter how expensive the zoom was. Personally, in the city, for walking around, I don't find a long zoom that useful. It almost always better to get close to the subject anyway. A 28-100 or 28-105 covers most needs.