70-300D or G

[marty_elan]

I am looking two buy a zoom for those times when I visit a zoo with my kids.

With a 2 year old and 9 mos old, I don't dare carrier my 70-200VR. Which of

these two lenses (70-300D/G) would you suggest I buy?

[aaron l]

The ED version. You'll be very dissapointed when you compare them to your 70-200 shots.

[jeff h.]

You don't mention what camera you will use this lens on, but I think I read somewhere

recently that Nikon is coming out with a 70-300 VR (G, ED) lens in the near future. I use

the D version of this lens (with ED glass) and am very happy with it. For zoo and kid's

sports shooting (which I do a lot of), it's excellent, without spending a lot of money; I have

always been impressed with the sharpness and rich colors this lens produces. The D

version has better build quality than the G version, and with the aperture ring, the D

version is more versatile on a wider range of Nikon camera bodies. IMHO, get the D (or

wait to see what Nikon's VR version is like).

[walterh]

Marty since the resale value of the Sigmas is lower than the Nikkor lenses you might consider a used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM. Its a nice lens but due to the f2.8 a bit heavy.

[vincenzo_maielli]

If you use an old manual Nikon (F2AS, F3, FM/FE, FM2/FE2, FM3a series) or na old AF Nikon camera (F4 series or F801/F801s) prefer the 70/300 D, because have the apertures ring on the lens (the 70/300 G to be lacking about the apertures ring). If you use the Nikon F80, F100, F5 or F6 otherwis any DSLR Nikon, it's indifferent the use of the 70/300 D or the 70/300 G.

Ciao

 

Vincenzo Maielli

[elliot1]

If you are shooting digital, I would suggest you consider the 55-200. It is a much better lens, in my opinion (I have owned both).

 

I would suggest you try them all and compare the results for yourself. The pictures will speak for themselves.

[scott_rushing]

I have the 70-300G and find it's a bit soft. So I'd go with the D if I were looking at those 2 lenses.

[panos_voudouris]

I have the G. In the 70-135mm range it is quite good even wide open and and at 135mm

-200mm it degrades a bit but a stop or two down puts it back in order. From 200-300 it

is basically unusuable, it is impossible to get anything sharp no matter f-stops,

shutter speeds, tripods, etc. Generally, not a bad lens at all for everyday snaps and very

light travelling, even more so as I managed to find mine mint for $70! Just don't expect

prints over 7x5 to look particularly good.

 

The D I hear is a bit better but still bad at 200-300mm. Personally, I don't think it is worth

it. If I am to get a mediocre lens, I might as well get the cheap one.

[steve_g2]

Most everyone quotes or paraphrases Ken Rockwell to slam this lens. Thom Hogan likes it better. I sure do like my D ED version.

 

Go to www.pbase.com and search for Nikon 70-300 to see hundreds of pictures made with this lens and decide if it is for you.

[adrian_byng_clarke]

The D version of this lens is quite good for that range and it has ED glass. I owned the lens

for quite a while and was happy with it. I sold mine a couple of weeks ago, just when I

switched to a digital body. With the 1.5x multiplier it was a bit long for my needs/taste.