Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G or Nikon ED 70 - 300mm

[havenornirvana]

What is the best for my Nikon D50?

I was looking at photos taken with G lens(on pbase.com) and they look very

good.I could not find any photos taken with ED.I`m thinking to buy G because

its good enough for me but will i miss something?Should i buy ED?

Please some advise!

Thanks

irfi

[frank_skomial]

Neither. Wait for the 70-300 VR lens from Nikon.

[raist7]

I agree, I'm waiting for that one also to complement my D80. If I'm lucky, maybe I can find it

already at the airport of Hongkong on my way back beginning of October..., but basically I

should buy a tripod and the SB600 first. Christmas, where are you, when you are needed?

[mawz]

Tamron 70-300 LD. Same optics as the D ED Nikkor, but an improved focusing helical that goes to 1:2 macro rather than the 1:3.9 on the Nikkor version.

 

The G uses the same optical design as the D ED, but lacks the ED elements of the D ED. The difference is almost entirely in CA, the G has some on high-contrast surfaces, the D ED doesn't. Also the G is much cheaper built and manual focus is quite aggravating, which isn't an issue with the D ED or Tamron LD.

[Peter_in_PA]

I agree with Frank. Wait for the new VR lens. Hopefully it'll be better than the 18-135 seems

to be. (That's what I'm doing.)

[raist7]

Just a little off-topic, but I don't think the 18-135 is that bad. I know it gets bashed on the

Web everywhere, but I got it as a kit-lense with my D80 and am not unhappy with the results.

The lens is sharp and has a useful zoomrange for travel. I agree, there are problems with

distortion and CA, but this can be corrected (I'm starting to find out parameters for different

lengths in CS2's lens correction tool). I found a fantastic wall (currently in Taiwan) for this. So

at 18 it is barrel (see image), soon after 20 it becomes pincushion, and 135 seems to be

roughly ok (don't have a lot of time to study in detail, but will probably shoot this wall once

more)<div></div>

[havenornirvana]

But the VR lenses are too expensive.I dont want to spend 1000$ for one lens.

[greg s]

"But the VR lenses are too expensive.I dont want to spend 1000$ for one lens."

 

Good point. What is the price of the VR'd 70 - 300mm? And have the optics been dramatically improved? If it is just a VR'd version of the existing 70-300mm optics and at a price over $400, then there would be better ways to spend the money. I have my 70-300mm ED for sale, as I always use a 300mm prime. -Greg-

[aaron l]

Get the ED or VR lens. The ED elements seem to help things along a bit. You can also put the Nikon 5T/6T adapters on this lens and convert it to a 0.87:1 macro.

 

The VR will cost ~$530US. Don't know if it's worth it, though. Sure do like the VR on the 80-400, though.

[jeff h.]

I chose the Nikkor D version over the G because it (the D) has better build quality, has ED

glass, seemed to focus faster on my N90s, has a nicer manual focus feel to it, has an

aperture ring so I can use it on older film bodies, and focused much better (less hunting)

than a Tamron I compared it with. Did I mention the ED glass? I love the color rendition

with this lens, it is true, contrasty, and sharp. I've used it for kids' sports, nature, portraits,

school plays, etc., and have always been very pleased with the lens.

[Michael R Freeman]

"What is the price of the VR'd 70 - 300mm? And have the optics been dramatically improved? If it is just a VR'd version of the existing 70-300mm optics ..." -- Greg S

 

The VR version certainly has a significantly different optical design - 17 elements in 12 groups and 2 ED glass elements versus 13 elements in 9 groups and 1 ED glass element in the older lens. One would certainly hope that this means "improved", but I guess we will have to wait for some real world tests to find out.

[walterh]

I would definitively wait for the VR lens to hit the stores. I bet the ebay prices for the "old" ED lens in good condition will drop :-P

[elliot1]

Consider the 55-200 DX lens. It is inexpensive, has a similar focal length to the 70-300 (although mine at 200mm seems to be more like 350mm when compared to my 18-200 at 200mm)

 

Although this lens has not received great reviews, if you can tolerate the slightly slower focussing, it gives very sharp images, even wide open (I find I have to stop down my 18-200 to f8 to get really sharp images).

 

In fact, I have done side-by-side shots with the 55-200 and my 70-200 2.8, and oddly enought, the picture are identical. Don't get me wrong - I am not claiming both lenses are the same, just that when low light and fast moving subjets are NOT issues, the 55-200 is an excellent performer.

 

I owned the 'G' version a few years ago and sold it - found the results good at best, terrible at 300mm.

 

Try before you buy... to be sure!

[havenornirvana]

One think i didnt get.Nikon ED 70 - 300mm is equivalent to filmcamera?what it`ll be?and isnt it same 70-300?if not , what about the 70-300G , what is it equivalent on film cameras.This digital world getting messy...

[Peter_in_PA]

You wrote "This digital world getting messy..."

 

Not if you can multiply by 1.5 it isn't. The field-of-view equivalence is roughly 105-450 with

a 70-300, but the depth of field and such doesn't change.

[greg s]

"The VR will cost ~$530US"

 

Then the sharpness is going to have to be MUCH better than any previously existing 70-300 (regardless of make or model) to warrant consideration. I have tried several times to convince myself to take the 70-300 ED on a trip, but after some test shots and comparisons it goes back on the shelf (and its not a matter of sample, its as sharp as any other 70-300).

 

I really wish Nikon would turn their VR attention to better lenses. Frustrating.

[tim_knight]

I`m thinking to buy G because its good enough for me but will i miss something?

 

I have read and believe it to be true that Nikon is cashing in on all of the new DSLR owners with cheaper lens. I have had my D50 since February and have enjoyed my 18-70, it is a great lens but since I have gotten the Nikon 50mm/1.8 this has made me realize the direction I need to go to be happy. Once I saw the detail and used the speed of faster glass my needs have changed. My next zoom will be a f/2.8 lens, my next Prime will be wider than the 50mm/1.8 and hopefully a f/1.8 or f/1.4. Maybe your needs will not be the same as mine, but I believe your expectations from your lenses will become more critical. If you do not need the 30-300G yet keep saving for the lens you can enjoy for many years.

[tim_knight]

Sorry about the error, I ment to say 70-300 G lens.