70-210 F4 Series E vs. 75-150 F3.5 Series E

[r.t. dowling]

If you had to choose between these two lenses, they were both in the

same condition and were the same price, which would you pick?

Basically I'd like to know which one is the sharpest, has best

contrast, etc. I realize that the 70-210 has a longer zoom and the

75-150 is slightly faster. Aside from those differences, which lens

is the best of the two?

[melvin_bramley]

I have the Nikkor 70-210 auto focus which has the same optical construction as the E lens. It is a very good lens.It's drawback is that it flares easily but has no ghosts.The 75-150 could be better but the difference may not be so much.Check out David Reuthers Nikkor site.

[ShunCheung]

IMO the decision should primarily be based on which focal length range meets your needs better. In this case, do you need to use it at 200mm often? Both of these were fine lenses in their days and should still be good today although zoom lenses have improved quite a bit in general from 20 years ago.

[r.t. dowling]

Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Would either of these lenses be better than comparable lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Vivitar, in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc.? I'm currently using a Tamron 70-210 4-5.6 and it gets the job done, but it's not very sharp or contrasty.

[albert_smith]

I have both lenses, and for me the 75-150mm lens is used very much more often. The basic reasons are the size and weight of the smaller lens. The main reason however is that in terms of prime lenses, I use my 105mm f/2.5 most often in this focal length range, and the 75-150mm is a lens that offers me some framing vaiations around this focal length... just a bit wider and tighter. I never miss the focal lengths that come after 150mm, but these might be important to you.<div></div>

[wildflower art]

This doesn't exactly answer your question, and I haven't used either,

but Mr. Ken Rockwell reviews the 75-150 and the 70-210 AIS at:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

 

I understand the 75-150 enjoys a cult reputation and is quite sought after.

 

Matthew

[todd_phillips1]

The late Galen Rowell used the 75-150E for his famous shot of the Tibet Palace with rainbow (on an F3).

 

I had the 75-150 and found it very sharp and in a weak moment, sold it and (as with many things) wish I still had it. Now if Nikon would only bring it back with AF....

[Jim_Tardio]

I prefer the 75-150 because it's smaller. It's quite sharp and contrasty, and I doubt that you could distinguish between the two. I had mine chipped so I could use it on modern bodies, like the D100.

<p>

Here's a shot with the 75-150/3.5 on Velvia 100F.<div></div>

[rolf_lockwood]

It's a toss-up but my vote goes to the 75-150. It's probably the sharper lens, but it's also smaller, lighter, slightly faster and uses 52mm filters instead of 62mm. Compared to the Tamron and others... well, no comparison at all. The 75-150 will kill 'em. And for those last 50mm, zoom with your feet because 200mm really isn't very much longer. Think how often you shoot at 200. I have 3 zooms in that general 70-200 range, plus the 75-150, and whenever I'm at 200 it seems I really want 300. Like a 28 is never wide enough, 200 is rarely long enough. If 200's OK for you, why not consider the Nikkor 80-200 4.0 or 4.5 AI lenses too? I'd still choose the 75-150.

[larry_miller7]

The Nikkor 75-150MM F3.5 Series E without a doubt!!!!!! That's one sharp lens......