DSLRUsers.com

Hey all,

Can anyone comment that has used both of these lenses?

Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D
and
Nikon Nikkor 70-300/f4-5.6D ED

Wondering how they shoot. I realize they are not pro glass, but then again I am not a pro either, and can not justify expensive glass at this point.

I have the 70-210, nice crisp glass with the obvious focal length limitations versus 300. Haven't shot with the 70-300. The shot I came second with in the last challenge was shot with that lens. They don't build them like they used to, not that is relevant but the 70-210 is better built.

Beltbuckle, unfortunately you don't list your location but you are welcome to try my 70-210 out or borrow it for a day.

Heh thanks for the offer Glen... added my location to my profile. As you can see I am a bit far away to take you up on it.

From what I have read, the 70-210 has a little better build quality, and the 70-300 is a bit soft at 300, but the additional reach would be nice. We are going on a long boating trip in a month or so and I am looking for a lens with more reach than the kit lens that won't break the bank.

I'll throw a related questiod out there: any noticable difference in image quality between the 70-300G and the ED version? The ED version demans another $100 or so, and has a metal mount, but not sure if there is much difference in the image. I have seen samples from both and can't really tell.

Hi Beltbuckle, visited Boise Idaho about 15 yrs ago, think I had the 70-210 with me at the time. Seem to remember a bit of enthusiasm for potato's in Idaho? Another lens you should consider is a second hand 80-200 2.8. They go for not much more than a 70-300 and optically are 2.8 with excellent quality. That is a pro lens versus a consumer lens, only downside being they weigh more.

beltbuckle wrote:Heh thanks for the offer Glen... added my location to my profile. As you can see I am a bit far away to take you up on it.

From what I have read, the 70-210 has a little better build quality, and the 70-300 is a bit soft at 300, but the additional reach would be nice. We are going on a long boating trip in a month or so and I am looking for a lens with more reach than the kit lens that won't break the bank.

I'll throw a related questiod out there: any noticable difference in image quality between the 70-300G and the ED version? The ED version demans another $100 or so, and has a metal mount, but not sure if there is much difference in the image. I have seen samples from both and can't really tell.

I can't comment on the ED version, but I have both the 70-300G and a 70-210. Comparing the lenses simply isn't possible; the 70-300 that I have (others report reasonable results) is terribly soft, whereas the 70-210 is very sweet.

My 15 or so years old 70-210 simply eats the 70-300 and spits it out - it doesn't like the aftertaste of unacceptable image quality.

I have a good friend in Boise. Look up Roger Donnay (Donnay Software) and tell him "Hi" from me.

Beltbuckle, i've been trying toget my hands on a second hand ED version for a while. It gets a pretty good write up here http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

Among other things he says "it performs well even at f/5.6, with results at f/8 and f/11 virtually indistinguishable from the considerably more expensive 80-200 f/2.8, except, perhaps, at the very corners" and "I'd rank this zoom by itself midway between the other consumer telephoto zooms and the top-of-the-line AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8."

Having an extra 100mm never hurt anyone either.

sounds like its worth a few extra to me. Then again, i'm no lens guru and its your wallet

adam