Cheap tele zoom decision

I do almost no photography at the long end of things (above 80mm) with my nikon 35mm camera. I have a 70-300G

that im selling tomorrow, and im going to buy a replacement of slightly higher quality, although, not much. I

want something to fill the upper end, but not drill a hole in my wallet since i might use it for 3% of the photos

i take.

 

Here are my three potential lens choices:

 

The 70-210 AF 4-5.6

 

The 70-210 AF-D 4-5.6

 

and the 70-300 ED AF-D 4-5.6

 

Basically these are the three low end nikon long zooms.

 

I hear that the 20-210 D is the best because of its fast AF. This has been a problem with the 70-300G i have. It

is so slow and sometimes will never lock to a target. Is the 70-210 regular slower than the distance version? Is

the ED in the 70-300 useless or will it actually make a difference. Whats the ranking of the AF speed in these

and whats the ranking of the quality.

 

Money is no object here, well it is, but they seem to be similar in price and very affordable (aka less than 200

used).

 

Im selling the one i have since a friend wants one quickly, and i dont need a long lens for a while, so im happy

to wait. Its also slow and doesnt have an aperture ring, which makes it useless on older cameras.

 

Thanks, Galen

 

Any insight into this matter is greatly appreciated.

Galen,

 

I don't believe that any of the 3 lenses that you are considering is going to be any great leap forward from your 70-

300G but you seem to know that. Why, then, would you want to spend the money?

 

Of the three, the 70-300 ED AF D (obviously) contains ED glass. I believe it's only 1 element, but I might be

mistaken. I had this lens for a short time, found it lacking in sharpness beyond 200mm and promptly sold it. It

handles chromatic aberations better than the G lens, but not by much. This is not an AFS lens so don't expect and

improvement in focusing speed.

 

Another option, if you can put together a bit more money, is the 70-300VR AFS. This is a re-designed version of the

70-300 ED AFD and, again, VR really helps. Although I haven't tried it, there have been some pretty good reviews.

Check out Thom Hogan's website (URL below) and read the review in which he compares the 3 70-300 Nikkors. He

also has a review of the 70-300ED on his site.

 

If you are actually considering either 70-210, why not consider the 55-200VR AFS instead? I've been using one for

the past year and it's a real value. It's actually sharp at 200mm (it's no 70-200VR though) and VR helps a lot when

you have a maximum aperture of only f/5.6 on the long end. As an AFS lens (kinda) it focuses faster than a regular

AFD lens. Check Thom Hogan's review (URL below)

 

 

www.bythom.com

Sorry, i didnt explain quite clearly enough.

I bought the lens when i had a camera that used G lenses, the D70. No i have upgraded to film and the D70 is

gone. I have an F4 and although the G works and i can control the aperture through shutter speed, its a pain and

i need a lens with a aperture ring.

 

I do not need VR, and again, im going for the under 200 buck stuff.

 

I am divesting in camera gear for awhile (by selling this lens) and then buying one in a bit when i find a deal

on ebay or at KEH.

Take a look at the new Tokina 70-200/2.8 lens. Might just fit the bill for you.

Dan - The 2.8 sounds nice. I presume that can only be found new, what is the price and when are used copies expected to appear?

 

I also found the 70-210 F4-5.6 SIGMA D UC-II when looking for the Tokina, I also add that to my potential list, its also half the price.

 

The two "features" that I need are an aperture ring and a speedier AF than the 70-300G had. The requirement is that the lens is cheap and not of the G/ VR type.

Another Nikkor to consider is the 70-210 f/4 (constant f/4). I use mine wide open mostly and it's very sharp. I wouldn't say the AF is fast on my DSLRs, doubt you'll find anything without AFS very fast, Maybe your F4 has a strong AF motor (don't know, have only progressed as fas as F3 myself ...).

Peter - I did consider that one, but its the same price as the 70-210 AFD, so although i will lose a stop at 210,

i would get faster focus and not have to risk getting one with an AF issue since i buy only online.

 

I think that my top choice right now is the 70-210 D since it seems to have a really fast focus. If the non D

version has the same focus speed however, i think that i would get that, since im not going to use teh distance

feature very much.

Galen,

 

I have owned (for short periods) both the non-D and AF-D versions of the AF 70~210mm f/4-5.6. FWIW, the D version does focus noticeably faster on an F4 compared to the non-D version. In terms of build quality it will be head and shoulders above that of the 70~300G, and it doesn't go soft at the long end like the 70~300G. Optically, both versions of the AF 70~210mm f/4-5.6 are identical.

 

No experience with the AF 70~300mm f/4-5.6D ED, so can't offer a comparison.

"Take a look at the new Tokina 70-200/2.8 lens. Might just fit the bill for you."

 

did you mean the tamron 70-200? AFAIK, tokina doesnt offer a 70-200, though they do have an economically-priced 80-400.

 

the 70-300 ED is a competant though not terribly exciting consumer-grade telephoto. it's pretty sharp at f/8-f/11. if you can find one used, it's a much better option than the 70-300 G. i'd personally rather own the 70-300 VR which supposedly has better IQ in addition to stabilization, but the 70-300 ED can be had for several hundreds of dollars less and can produce good results if you're willing to work around its limitations. i hadnt shot with it in a while, and pulled it out last night...<div></div>

I have used the 70-210mm AF 4-5.6 non-D, the 70-300mm G, the 70-300mm G ED, the 75-300mm and the 70-300mm VR. In my experience, the 70-210mm was not good, even stopped down on a tripod. I could find no visible difference in the pictures taken with the 70-300mm G and the G ED lenses. The 75-300mm has a better build quality, a tripod collar and good color and contrast between f8 and f16. The best is the 70-300mm VR, a little more money, but you will likely use it more than you thought when you see the results.

High, one more time, thanks for you suggestions but I cannot use a G lens or a VR lens. They just dont work so

great on the F4 since it requires an aperture ring and doesnt have support for VR anyway. Im also not willing to

spend more than 200 for like new or 120 for bgn condition stuff.

 

I said price was no object but that was because all three of the original lenses i suggested fit my criteria for

price. So i guess price is an object.

 

Thanks, Galen

Why would you consider "upgrading" not get a f/2.8 lens? Save your money for a good 80-200 f/2.8

(Sigma/Tokina are fine if money is tight) --- you will not regret getting a fast lens trust me.....

Because those are expensive, and like I said in the first place, when I use this lens, its for landscapes and I stop down to at least F8 anyways.

 

Im not really upgrading, im trading so that I can get functionality that I require for virtually nothing. I sold my 70-300 the other day and Im just waiting to snatch up a bargain to replace it. Again, I rarely use this focal length, mostly I carry two lenses, the 24 and the 50, and I find myself mostly wishing for a 20 or a 35, not 70 let alone 300.

 

Im getting this for security, so that when I find that one great shot that needs th length of the lens, i can go ahead and snap it.

lol....get that one special lens for that one special shot that you need. :P

Best of luck...hope you dont oversleep that one magical day.

haha, yea, i slept through a moose in the front yard the other day, or rather, i missed it because i was getting

out my camera.

 

The point is though that im not getting a special lens, im getting a cheap consumer lens, or a bargain condition

one step up, ie the 70-210D.

 

Thanks for the luck, i need some if im going to take some good shots. :P