Mid-Range Priced Nikon Lenses

[michael_cordin1]

I can't help but wonder where the mid-range quality lenses have gone

for Nikon users. It seems there was once a time when Nikon made

lenses like the 70-210 f/4, which had quality and decent speed. I'm

speaking mostly towards the telephoto zoom catagory. With all of the

VR, IF, ED, blah, blah, blah we get the choice of ridiculously priced

2.8 lenses that really are supposed to be in the hands of

professionals. I would love to see Nikon take the time to address the

advance amatuer with tele-zooms that perform well, have some speed

(say a fixed f/4 - that's typically quick enough for anything I'm

doing.) What we have today is either get a second mortgage for a 2.8

telephoto, buy a crappy 4-5.6 or slower that looks and feels like the

piece of garbabe it is, or turn to non-Nikon glass in brands like

Sigma, which unfortunately have become near the same price as Nikkons

recently.

 

Can one tell me why the mid-market photo-bugs are not seen as worthy

market? I want good glass, I want some speed, but often the best is

too much for what I'm doing and the alternative is just too junky.

 

Thanks, Mike

 

Don't get me wrong - I'll scour places like ebay and keh for used

70-210 f/4's and 300mm f/4 fixed focal - great glass at reasonable prices.

[jimh]

I couldn't agree more. Though for me personally I think the price för the 80-200/2.8 zooms isn't the big issue, but the weight. I have no need for f/2.8 if it comes with the weight penalty of the Nikon zooms. Nikon has the x0-200/2.8 and the 70-300/4-5.6 but without a high quality option in between, except for the 70-180 micro which is slow, heavy and expensive.

<p>

Canon has a killer lens in the 70-200/4. It's affordable, good weight, high quality and has a tripod collar. I can't understand that Nikon hasn't answered. And I'm even more surprised that none of the third party manufacturers has come up with a lens in that class.

<p>

I ended up with an 80-200/4 AI-S. It's a pity that it lacks a tripod collar and that it doesn't seem to have enough room inside for a CPU transplant (which I discovered <i>after</i> I got the donour lens for the chip). But it's a superb lens and right now seems to be my only option.

[jimh]

I even had an AF 80-200/2.8 but I discovered very quickly that I would never like it. It's way too big and heavy for me who never photograph at big apertures anyway and always use a tripod. The weight in the bag is a big issue for beeing able to walk far in the wilderness. <p>Fortunately it had an issue with infinity focusing so I could send it back.

[jbq]

That issue (good mid-range telephotos) is in my opinion an issue with the current range of Nikon telephoto zooms, to the point where looking for a used 70-210 f/4 or 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 might be a safe bet.

 

Canon has an amazing 70-200/4 lens, but it it a pretty big monster (at least by "consumer zoom" standards).

[jim_gifford]

The thing is, in that classic tele zoom range, you already have three fine Nikkors. The 70-300 AF-D costs less than $300. The 80-200/2.8 is about $800 or so. The 70-200VR costs about five times as much as the 70-300 and about twice as much as the 80-200.

 

The 70-300 AF-D gets criticized around here but I beg to differ with those critics. I used to have a Series E 70-210 zoom, which is the father of the autofocus 70-210/4 AF lens people here seem to miss so much. Now I have the D-series 70-300. I always liked the trusty Series E zoom, and it had fine contrast and sharpness. My 70-300 is better, crisper, sharper through 200mm... and then it offers the additional reach in focal length out to 300mm, just as icing on the cake. Bear in mind that today's 400 speed films allow you to get better results at f/5.6 with the 70-300 than you used to get with 100 speed film and f/4 when the 70-210 Series E was introduced. The 70-300 will hunt in autofocus mode, true.. but the older AF lens is no autofocus speed demon either (and the autofocus on my Series E was TERRIBLE <g>).

 

If you were running Nikon, and you had the three current zooms in production, would you recommend the expense of adding a fourth lens to that range, with a max f/4 aperture, that would need to sell for a street price of $550 or less?

 

Here's a radical thought. Nikon should just drop the price of the venerable (and thoroughly amortized) 80-200/2.8 lens to about $550 and then it would be the Canon folks whimpering "hey hey hey, how come the Nikon guys get an f/2.8 lens for the same price as our f/4 lens?"

 

Be well,

[Ed_Ingold]

Michael, I fail to understand your complaint. Nikon has many mid-priced, high-quality lenses, both zoom and prime. Among zooms, the 28-105/3.5-4.5 is highly regarded, as is the 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S.

 

It seems that you want a fast, fixed-aperture zoom for $500 or less. Don't we all?

 

In fact, variable-aperture zoom lenses are simpler, lighter and less expensive than fixed-aperture zooms of comparable optical quality. That's why Nikon reserves that feature for the high-end lenses, where price is not the major consideration. If you design a fixed-aperture lens to a price point, you must compromise on distortion, aberations and focus stability.

 

As for quality, any Nikon lens in my kit is as sharp and has more contrast than my 1964 Leica. Computerized ray-tracing, better glass properties and improved manufacturing count for a lot. Ever dented a filter ring? Well, plastic doesn't dent or brass with use. Metal is still used where it counts.

 

Will Rogers put it well. "Things ain't what they used to be, and they never were!"

[michael_cordin1]

Ed - I don't mean to take you to the carpet on this; but any time you're trying to cover from the 20's(mm) to the 100's+(mm) I think you're asking too much from the lens - I don't care how much computer guided, formula making, special coating, you're speaking about. The 70-300 you speak of is OK, but by no means is it even near the quality of the older 70-210 AF f/4 or the 70-210 AFD 4-5.6. The 70-300 is for people who will never blow up an image past 5x7; it suffers from both gross barrel distortion and pincushining. That's not what I'm looking for in my lens, nor do I want a lens that is covering so much variation. I think it would have been in Nikon's best interest to continue making a lens like the 70-210 at a fixed f4, perhaps give it the ED coating, and the D feature and leave it at that. I'm more than willing to spend in the neighborhood of $500-$700 for glass. I think one of the other people posting on this thread said that it would be nice if Nikon reduced the 80-200/2.8 to around $600. This would be perfect for the middle market buyer. Unfortunately, I feel this lens may be discontinued and all we will be left with is ebayed used lenses, or the ridiculous 70-200/2.8 VR - which is just totally impractical for myself. Photography is a wonderful outlet for me, but I don't make a dime from my photos, so my concern will always be a certain amount of value and quality. Plastics are here to stay, but I don't want my lens to be out of balance - you can keep on making them lighter and more plasticy, and I'm sure the average non-tripod using photo-snapping consumer will be delighted. But, I want a little weight and metal threading works just fine for me - I've been able to re-work a dent in metal thread, but fixing a broken off or cracked piece of plastic is near impossible.

 

I wasn't at all adressing fixed focal lenses either, they will almost always out perform any zoom at a significantly reduced cost. And any lens that was marked with an "E" should not be considered if you're trying to make crisp well balanced photos.

 

Please understand, I am not asking for the magic lens. What I'm saying is that there is an advanced amateur market which is unadressed by Nikon. It's either save, save, save for a heck of an expensive piece of glass or suffer through circus distortions in lenses that trying to hard to be "the one lens" a person mounts on their camera and never removes.

 

Just my opinions.

[jbq]

Michael: I think that you go too far in your comments:

 

-I've printed some *very* satisfactory portraits full-bleed on letter paper that were shot with a 70-300G (not even the ED version) wide open (or close to it, I don't remember, but definitely not f/8) (at the short end - I'll agree that the long end is a notch below).

 

-Some series E lenses are decent to good, e.g. the 70-210/4 actually has the same formula as the AF variant. The 75-150/3.5 and 100/2.8 are also said to be good, as well as the 50/1.8. I don't actually have any of those, I just comment on what I've read in other places.

[Ed_Ingold]

Michael, you diss the 28-105 even though you've never used one. I used a 28-105 AFD extensively on a backup body, mainly shooting with Velvia. I can attest that the results are sharp and that the distortion is quite tolerable. I can also say, the affordable 35-70/2.8 is better (the lens on my main camera at that time).

 

I have an 80-200/2.8, and can attest that it's a chunk to carry for 8 or 10 hours. Still, the quality is unassailable. Used, the AF-D version is within your price range. Don't make the generalization that primes beat zooms. There are gems and dogs in any category, but the f/2.8 zooms hold their own across the board.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the 80-200/2.8 is very reasonably priced and a quality lens. Nikon also has the high-end AF-S VR 70-200/2.8G which is more expensive, and then they have two consumer 70-300/4-5.6s. I think they have the market covered. If you want a high-quality light-to-handle lens, then go for the primes such as the 105/2 or f/2.8 and the 180/2.8. Although they together weigh even more than the f/2.8 zoom, the difference is cancelled if you carry a wide range of lenses, yet you gain the advantage of having lenses which are nice to carry on the camera.

[michael_cordin1]

Obviously this thread has worn thin... It was a thread directly related to tele-photo zooms 80mm+ Not primes, not mid range zooms, not wide angles. Ugh read the first post and contribute based on that question please. I use two very nice zooms, a wide angle and mid range, which are not fixed focals - 18-35/3.5-4.5 and 24-85/2.8-4 I like both of these lenses very much, they have proved their worth to me over and over again. There are many reasons these focal lengths and stops work very nicely, none the least being that I can hand hold without worry. I'm sorry my opinion is under such contestment; I actually figured there were would be more people wondering about less expensive fixed aperatures. I guess satisfaction is different for everybody. Also, I've shot with several series E's, they stink, sorry, just my opinion.