Nikon 70-300 AF D ED & 70-210 AF D

I'm not sure that I have seen any threads comparing these two lenses directly. Does anyone recommend one over the other as a general purpose lens, including candids & some portrait work (understanding that the 85mm or 105mm & the 80-200 2.8 are optically better lenses for this purpose).

Mark, this isn't quite the answer you want, but some info that I hope

you will find useful.<p>

Most people prefer the original AF 70-200 4 (not "D" fixed f4) to the

newer one. Also many prefer the older AF 75-300 4.5-5.6 to the

70-300. Except for the AIS 50-300 4.5 IF ED and the AIS 100-300 5.6

(both big, heavy, MF and more expensive) just about all Nikkor x-300

Nikkor zooms start to lose some sharpness after around 200 mm or so.

So if sharpness is critical you may be better off with a shorter zoom

if you're not likely to use the longer length (OTOH it's certainly no

worse/probably better than cropping a shot taken at 200 to 300).<p>

If you don't mind MF lenses, the Nikon Series E 75-150 3.5 has got an

excellent reputation and is quite affordable.

I can also highly recommend the 75-150, it is very light, cheap and

sharp. I have the 80-200/2.8 also, but when I am not sure whether

I will really need a long lens then I carry only the 75-150. They

have both their advantages.

<p>

Before I had the 70-210, but I sold it, since I fould it was only

compromise, performance was not a good as either of the other

2 lenses, at 210/5.6 it is quite dark, I can use a TC201 with the

75-150.

<p>

I have also the 85/1.8, which is nice too, but recently in a portrait

class I perfer to use a zoom (in a class I can not always choose the

best position) and the 80-200 does a good job. Actually

I think there would be nearly no difference to the 75-150,

since I use no AF, no matrix metering and no color film. However

for training the computer interface is useful, therefore a 'D' lens is

nice.