IQ of a Nikon 70-300mm ED lens.

[gogu]

<p>Hi all!<br>

Last days it was the Romanian Grand Prix and it happened to be there so I grabbed the opportunity to make a "few" pictures with my new D90. Unfortunately my only long lens was the older ED type 70-300mm Nikon but I said, what the heck better mediocre pictures than no pictures at all;-)<br>

So I went having in mind to shoot about 200-300 pictures and I came back with...840 pictures on my SD card!<br>

Most of them shot at 300mm which is the worst focal length of this lens...<br>

Could you please judge the IQ at this focal length for this specific lens?<br>

All that grain I see is it because of the lens quality or I did something wrong with the exposure?<br>

Shot at P, 200 ASA, Vivid, shutter speed was most between 1/1000s and 1/2000s and 5.6 to 6.3 aperture.<br>

Any opinion greatly appreciated!</p>

<p>rgrds</p><div></div>

[gogu]

<p>Another one.</p>

[gogu]

<p>And the last one.</p><div></div>

[gogu]

<p>Sorry for the second posting, picture didn't come up.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>gogu, there's a lot of purple fringing in the pics you posted (might be enhanced by using the vivid setting). also, it looks like you were shooting wide open. that lens is much, much better stopped down to f/8-9. i actually don't see a whole lot of 'grain' as you say, but it looks like you were shooting into the sun, which will result in haze with any lens. also, you bumped the EV which can lead to overexposure. and, is that shutter 1/200 or 1/2000? in bright sunlight like this, you might want to use a polarizer, actually. but there's nothing wrong with the lens--all your issues can be safely chalked up to user error. :) hope that helps.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the third one actually looks OK. whatever you did, it cleared up the purple fringing on that one. take a look at your setting carefully. and try not to shoot wide open with that one if you can help it, the IQ improves dramatically two-three clicks down.</p>

[gogu]

<p>Thanks Eric, of course it's user error;-)<br>

I know that I should stop down the lens to at least 8 but I was so excited I forgot it!<br>

As for the polarizer, I simply didn't have it with me:-(<br>

And yes, it's 1/2000s, I just mistyped.<br>

Thanks again for the input!</p>

[photo5]

<p>I've always felt satisfied with this lens on a DX body. For a little less than $200 it really gives a lot of zoom range. On an FX body however, it shows it's weaknesses quite a bit more, so for FX I'd recommend a good f2.8 telephoto zoom.<br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/154266068_jJ936-L.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D80, Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom at 300mm, Vancouver, Canada 5-2007. This ship, built in 1952 as the Canadian Pacific Liner "Empress of Britain" has now been scrapped. (Unprocessed JPG Basic straight from camera)</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Don't forget, atmospheric haze, thermals, dust etc make getting sharp images difficult when shooting at long ranges. You said you were at 300mm for most shots, so I will assume the boats were quite a ways away.</p>

[gogu]

<p>Yes Pete, the boats were in the middle of the lake and I was at the shore, couldn't get closer than that;-)<br>

And you are right of course, atmospheric haze is indeed a problem when shooting such events from so far away...</p>

<p>rgrds</p>