Going back to go forward, Nikon 70-300mm Zoom Lenses

[red_buckner]

<p>I've been dissatisfied with results from my f4.5-f5.6 70-300mm ED AF D lens. Yes, it's light, but the resolution is poor. So I bought the previous generation of the same lens: the AF non-ED, non-D heavyweight. I shot with it today, and the AF is just as fast as the ED version, and the weight is not enough to pose problems. I hope the quality of results is better. BTW, does anyone know the name of the lens hood that fits it? Here's an example of resolution from the ED lens. I'll soon post shots from the oldie. </p><div></div>

[red_buckner]

<p>To draw an extreme comparison, here's the resolution of the 105mm f2.5 AI. </p><div></div>

[southjerseyphotos]

<p>I believe the hood is a HB-15</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>The lens also managed to produce a lot of noise!!! and bad colors!!!</p>

<p>Still I would pick the first instead of the second photo</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The first image has moving subjects: two people walking. Were you using an image with moving subjects to evaluate lens resolution?</p>

<p>Were you using a tripod and what was the shutter speed you were using?</p>

[red_buckner]

<p>Your questions are good. Both shots were hand-held with the same type of film. I'll look around tonight for a zoom shot of a non-moving subject. BTW, the shot of the two walkers was shot with the zoom at about 100mm and the shutter speed was high, although I don't recall the number. The film was fast and it was bright out. </p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>The hood should be the HB 24.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Talk about apples to oranges...</p>

<p>that said, I agree that the 105mm f2.5 is awesome...</p>

[red_buckner]

<p>I agree that few lenses can be compared to the 105, but I wanted a difference strong enough to survive the shrinking and processing necessary to post a shot here. Here's another shot with the ED zoom, which by the way, is f4-5.6, not 4.5. No motion here, but look at the poor rendering of skin and small details. And the blah colors. </p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>You wouldn't exactly expect good colors and fine details when you are hand holding a telephoto lens with high-speed film.</p>

<p>The 105mm AI image sample here is highly misleading: it has the advantage of having a flash as the primary source of light so that (1) it has no camera/lens vibration issues due to the flash and (2) the direct flash produces a lot of contrast that gives people the perception of sharpness.</p>

<p>If you want to compare those lenses, I would:</p>

<ol>

<li>Use a tripod</li>

<li>Still subjects</li>

<li>Since you shoot film, I would use a slow-speed film, e.g. Velvia 50.</li>

<li>Compare under identical conditions with the camera mounted on a tripod and just switch lenses.</li>

</ol>

<p>And since those are film scans, the quality of the scanning also adds some unknown to the equation.

</P>

<P>

Finally, if you are going to hand hold a telephoto, I don't think it is a good idea to give up VR from the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. None of Nikon's previous 70-300 or 75-300mm lenses has VR. (Of course, that also depends on whether your film SLR supports VR or not.)</p>

[red_buckner]

<p>Shun, I will test the lenses exactly as you suggest and post the results. I do need to cut down the variables if I want meaningful data. The newer lens I have did not come with VR. It's a D-generation autofocus without VR. And of course, the older lens hasn't it either. I believe the VR version of this lens is a different optical setup; I don't know about its reputation. (I can't afford it anyway.)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sorry, I was confused by which lens you had earlier. The only Nikon lens that is 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 is the AF-S VR.</p>

<p>The earlier AF versions are f4-5.6, not 4.5 and there was also a 75-300mm with a tripod collar, but that starts at 75mm instead of 70mm.</p>

<p>The 70-300mm/f4-5.6 AF G lens that has a plastic lens mount is typically considered as a low-quality lens.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I tested the Nikon 70-300/4-5.6 D ED against the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and the cheap zoom has reasonable imag e quality and is much superior to it's non-ED counterpart from what I have read.  </p>

<p>I suspect the problems you are having is with film choice or in the scanning process.</p>

<p>As others have mentioned test the lenses thoroughly using Velvia 50 and view under 10X<br>

magnification, no need to scan.<br>

 </p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>EDIT: Nevermind. I re-read the post and retract comments :-)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you're testing lenses, especially long lenses, in the outside world then conditions can be so variable that it's almost impossible to draw anything except very broad conclusions.</p>

<p>Atmospheric haze or pollution will affect the contrast and colour rendering of any lens. The quality and position of the light will reveal or hide flare and exaggerate or obscure texture and colour in the subject. Heat turbulance can make even the best lens look fuzzy. A strong wind can disturb clothing or leaves and induce subject movement and raise dust.</p>

<p>All these things are almost impossible to predict or control, and that's without the variables of focus error and camera stability. Remember, there can only be ONE plane of exact focus, and there really is no such thing as depth-of-field. So unless you're going to use Liveview focusing and bolt your camera to a massive concrete block, shooting only the exact same subject in the exact same light, in an enclosed filtered, humidity and temperature controlled environment, then lens comparisons are going to be tenuous at best.</p>

[red_buckner]

<p>The ED lens has a reputation for focus errors. I see signs of that in the second shot. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Red, which SLR body/bodies are you using?</p>

[vinh]

<p>You really do need to do test shots under the same conditions, especially using the same roll of film. Not just same film mind you, same roll. Different processing and scanning can have a huge effect on the results.</p>

<p>The first shot you posted clearly has more noise, which would eat into perceived resolution. Furthermore, the noise looks unnatural, like it was ran through a noise reduction program... The shot with the 105mm was taken with flash, guaranteeing a good exposure and thus less grain (grain is more of a problem in underexposed shots). Unless two comparison shots are taken in the exact same conditions, on the same roll, processed and scanned the same, the comparison is invalid.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>one step forward; two steps back</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 70-300 ED is probably the least favorite lens i own. nevertheless, it can be coaxed into shooting decent shots. it's just not really a walkaround lens like the 70-300 VR is--too much camera shake past 200mm. it does do a little better on a tripod.</p>

<p>under the right conditions, however--f/8 and 1/500 or faster--you can get some reasonably sharp, contrasty shots with it.</p>

<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>it's really not a terrible lens, and did have a decent rep until the VR came out, but i generally consider it more of a 'landscape' than 'people' lens. you definitely need good technique if you're going to handhold it.</p>

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

[eric_arnold]

<p>here's one from three years ago which isnt the best photo i've ever taken, but also not the worst. i do like the colors...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i've never noticed the focusing to be off in my copy, btw.but i've also never used it on a film camera. on d80 and d300, it did fine.</p>

<p>Red, you say you have the 70-300 D, is that from like, four iterations ago? in other words, the lens before the 70-300 G, which was followed by the ED, which was followed by the VR?</p>

<div></div>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p>...under the right conditions, however--f/8 and 1/500 or faster--you can get some reasonably sharp, contrasty shots with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that damning with faint praise? I hardly ever see both f/8 and 1/500 together in the same exposure -- f/8 at 1/20 or f/2 at 1/500 are more likely. Guess I should get out in the daylight more often.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>john, the 70-300 ED can't shoot at f/2.</p>

<p>and shooting at 1/20 at 300mm would make for a blurry, blurry pic.</p>

<p>in my experience with the 70-300 ED, it's extremely average until you get to f/8, at which point it suddenly becomes super-contrasty. that's not to say you can't use it wide open for a snapshot, but that's not the best lens for that job.</p>

<p>if i'm shooting with that one, it's because i need 300mm and no other lens i own will get me there. unfortunately, the lightweight construction means that it's extremely motion-sensitive at longer focal lengths, hence the fast shutter.</p>

<p>that's why the 70-300 VR is so much better, because the VR minimizes camera shake, so you can use it handheld. i did shoot a college football game at night once with the 70-300 ED, but the lights were bright enough that i could use a fast shutter. mainly it sits gathering dust. however, it does have decent optics.</p>