totally confused

[soumyadip_ghosh]

after doing a lot of research and reading lot of reviews i am still

in a no mans land

 

i gave my 70-300 G nikon to a friend of mine.

 

i need something in that range.

my options are

 

1.Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II

2. Tamron 70-300mm Ld macro 1:2

3. nikon 70-300 AF ED

[arnabdas]

Buy any one of these. They are more or less the same.

[wnemetz]

Soumyadip, I had both the 70-300mm G and the Tamron 70-300mm LD with the 1:2 macro w/62mm cap. I found that I liked the Tamron much better. I kept the Nikon lens cap for the Tamron and sold the G!! Not that the G was all that bad either. I do agree with the above, they are all nearly the same. Just my 2 cents!

[vivek iyer]

Which one of those names sound better to you?

[arnabdas]

On second thought, you may want to avoid the Nikon since it gives only up to 1:4 magnification at closest focus. The Sigma and Tamron both go to 1:2 at closest focus and are useful for the occassional macro :)

[vivek iyer]

Wouldn't an extension tube overcome that short coming from the Ed Nikon lens?

[arnabdas]

It would. But I would prefer not to make an already long lens any longer by adding an extension (to get to 1:2 from 1:4 at 300mm you have to add quite a bit of extension) UNLESS it was the PN-11, and Soumyadip may lose metering with the PN-11 -- see what I mean?

[vivek iyer]

I see.

 

But a longer lens could provide even a longer working distance,

particularly useful to photograph flowers without altering their state.

[arnabdas]

Not sure what you mean. You have more or less the same WD with Sigma/Tamron at 1:4. If you want to use them with an extension having focus scale positioned at 1:4, you can.

[soumyadip_ghosh]

i was actually thinking of tamron with a 1.4x teleconverter. i think that will me much better than a PN 11 as i will loose my metering as arnab pinted out.

 

what do you think??

[arnabdas]

Don't even think about using any of those zooms with a TC.

[soumyadip_ghosh]

arnab can u explain a bit why not to use a TC with Tamron 70-300mm Ld

[vivek iyer]

This is your 3rd or 4th post regarding these lenses. As I have already pointed out, they have their (limited) place. Don't worry about the "macro"feature or the extension tube (PN11 does not do anything special compared to other extension tubes, the tripod mount is useful. That is it) or converters.

 

Crappy will become crappier.

[lukas_kisiel]

Nikon 70-300 ED AF (not G) and Nikon 6T closeup lens ($45 at B&H) will give you a nice telephoto zoom with a very capable macro range. I got this tip in Nikon School class but seems to be a good advice.

[jluebke]

Soumyadip,

 

Using a 1.4x teleconverter with any of these lenses is going to lead to a serious degradation of image quality, in addition to a 1-stop loss of speed. As Lex pointed out in one of your other threads, any "super zoom" like this is already beset with serious optical compromises in order to make it work throughout a very wide zoom range. They tend to suffer from varying degrees of geometric distortion, propensity to flare, vignetting, softness in the corners, etc. A teleconverter is only going to make these problems worse.

 

On top of that, with the TC you've got a max fstop of 5.6 at the short end, and an abysmal f8 at the long end. Unless you are only shooting outdoors in very bright light, you are going to struggle to get usable shutter speeds. Ever tried to hand hold a 400+ mm lens, much less one with a max aperture of f8? I don't know what type of shooting you do, but it is just not going to be a practical solution for most shooters.

 

Make your own decision, but it's clear what the forum contributors have to say on this matter.

[hayward]

Like Arnab said, they are more or less the same. The Nikon has higher resale value if you think you will sell it later. If you shoot digital, I'd buy a used Nikon 180mm 2.8 instead. The "macro" designation is misleading -- while they focus closer than the Nikon equivalent, they are not really true macros lenses such as the Tamron 90mm ot the Nikon 105mm micro.

[ethan_melad]

of those lenses i'd go for the tamron. regardless of their comparative quality to pro lenses,

the difference between a 1:2 and 1:4 macro is significant. thus, rule out the mikkor.

[lex_jenkins]

What Jon said, Soumyadip. You'll frequently be irritated with an inferior zoom and you'll never regret stretching your budget to accomodate a really good zoom.

 

Inferior zooms - which most superzooms tend to be - generally produce acceptable images only within a narrow "sweet spot" of focal range and aperture. A 70-300 zoom that might produce really good photos only between 150mm-200mm at f/8 to f/11 isn't a very useful tool. I'd rather carry a single fast prime of approximately the same focal length, like the excellent 180mm f/2.8 Nikkors.

 

"Macro" zooms are usually a ruse to lure in buyers who haven't seen the lens tests or talked with other photographers who've tried them. There are a few zooms with good close up capabilities within a truly useful focal range, but not many.

 

If it were my money and I absolutely had to have a telezoom, I'd get the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor. If I had a little more money I'd go for the upgraded version of that lens. Fast lenses have many advantages: brighter viewfinders; the ability to use faster shutter speeds; less grainy film or less noisy digital ISO settings; better control over depth of field.

 

And faster, higher quality lenses tend to produce good images wide open while slower, economy lenses tend to be soft wide open. So you may not even get to use an f/4-5.6 lens at maximum aperture if you want sharp photos.

 

Sorry to make this all sound like gloom and doom but most of us who are advising you to get the best lens you can afford are doing so because we've already made the mistake of buying crappy lenses and want to save others the trouble.

[arnabdas]

Lex, I had more than decent results with the 70-300 ED Nikkor.

[lex_jenkins]

Then that's all the recommendation anyone needs.

 

I had a Canon FD 100-300mm f/5.6 zoom with true continuous close focusing. It was a very good performer at all apertures throughout the entire focal range.

 

But it was slow and useful only in bright light or with fast film.

 

It's up to each photographer to decide which compromises he or she is willing to accept.

[arnabdas]

Right ... my compromises were f8-f11, mirror prefire, cable release and a tripod.