DSLRUsers.com

Hey guys, glad to be a new member here, althoguht I've been reading a lot in here before buying the D70 (almost us$ 300 cheaper than the D70s) I still have many questions that I can't find answers on the manual or on this posts.
I have the nikon DX 18-70mm IF G ED lens that came with the camera, and I'm looking to buy a 70-300 lens for it. I've looked at the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG, which is cheaper, but can't find a comparison chart bewteen the two that would tell me which way to go, kind of pros and cons, etc. The macro capaibilites of the sigma is not a factor on this, just image quality, sharpness, minimal focus distance.
I have read a few reviews on both, some say Sigma, some say Nikon, not sure which one to buy and would like your help on this one, based on facts if possible. AM I asking to much in my first post?
By the way, this forums are a sea of knowledge for newbies and pros, wish we had something like this in the US, group outings and all.

I forgot to mention that this is first SLR type of camera, so many terms are still unknown to me .

Welcome Marcos, hope you enjoy it here. Not sure which lens is better, don't have either, hope someone can help

Marcos,

Welcome.

There's nothing to stop you from organising your own, local, meets.

As to lenses, I'm a firm beliver that if you have a Nikon camera, you're doing yourself no favours by putting non-Nikkor glass on the front of it.

That said, avoid the 70-300G. Go for one of the other 70-300 Nikkors ...

That said, avoid the 70-300G. Go for one of the other 70-300 Nikkors ...

Gary, what's the problem with the 70-300G? I was looking at getting this lens....is there something I in particular I should be aware of?

meerkat wrote:

That said, avoid the 70-300G. Go for one of the other 70-300 Nikkors ...

Gary, what's the problem with the 70-300G? I was looking at getting this lens....is there something I in particular I should be aware of?

The 70-300G is a good example of you get what you pay for. It can be a little soft and is not particularly fast. I have one and it's not even been on my body since I got the 70-200. That said you can still take some damn good shots with it. If you do a search for 70-300G you should find some threads here that show it at it's best (there were some excellent white water kayak shots by killakoala for example)

Marcos - you may notice from my avatar that I am somewhat of a Sigma friend. I have used Nikon cameras since 1966 and I am not afraid to experiment with other glass.

My adage in life is to make the best of what you have - so don’t be afraid to use Sigma - all makes of glass have their lemons

meerkat wrote:

That said, avoid the 70-300G. Go for one of the other 70-300 Nikkors ...

Gary, what's the problem with the 70-300G? I was looking at getting this lens....is there something I in particular I should be aware of?

Mine is as soft as a baby's bottom.

That's great for talcum powder, but not too exciting photographically. Bottom line (pun intended) is that bottom line is not clear.

Mine stays firmly enclosed in its cupboard, where it can safely rest and do no harm to any photos I might consider taking.

I've got a Sigma 70-300 APO DG and I'm really happy with it. It feels nicely made and the results are good. When I get a chance I will post some pics from car racing on the weekend.

If you have the option, go and have a play with them both in the store and take some test shots. Also do yourself a favour and have a play with the ED version (more $$$) if you can.

Specific things to think about are things like:
* high contrast shots (eg tree branches against sky) as this will help show up issues like chromatic aberation (that purple/red fringing).
* something with lots of intricate detail
* test each lens at combinations of various apertures / focal lengths / focus distance. The lenses usually show their warts at combination of short focus (or long) distance, at min aperture on the long end of the zoom.
* unless you are confident of your hand-holding on longer lenses, try and keep your shutter speeds as high as possible to minimise camera shake (eg 1/500s or more when at 300mm). Id probably bump up the ISO and ignore the noise if necessary as camera shake will more than cover up any differences between the lenses.
* Make notes, you wont remember which pic you took with which lens.

When I was looking at these lenses, I found the Sigma felt particularly plasticky and doesnt look very nice either (funny shape). The semi-macro capability is nice though. It was also quite noisy whilst focussing.
The ED has a nicer focus ring (about twice the width of the 70-300G).

Opinions on the optical performance between the G and the ED seem to vary. Some say little difference and others feel the ED is better. Unsure where the Sigma falls in here as I didnt end up bothering to test any of them.

One general thought with this class of lens seems to be that you buy a reasonably cheap lens as it will almost certainly be upgraded in the future if you get serious.

HTH
Rob.

Marcos,

I have the sigma 70-300 although NOT the APO version. I like it. It's a good enough lens for now and was cheap enough at the time. I too was looking at the nikon and decided to go for this because it had the added "bonus" of a macro function and some of the shots I saw on pbase comparisions were a lot sharper than the nikon.
I would of course get better glass if I could afford it but it suits me now.

It is a little soft sometimes, but sometimes it surprises me and is nice and sharp. THe macro is great, even at 1:2.

These are some of the shots I have taken with it.







In the end, we would all go for more expensive glass if we could. Both are good lenses for the money. If you can, take in a CF card and have a play with both and see which one you prefer.

Thank you guys for your responses, I've heard good things on the Sigma, but since I'm just a beginner, I'll probably would want a better lens later as I learn a little more, so resale value is a factor here and Nikon, besides its fame and quality, keep its value far better.
Rokkstar, nice shots by the way. Someone mentioned going to the camera shop and play or test the lenses, I'm doing something a little better, I found a pro shop here that rent those lenses at about US$10 a day, I'll get them and bring them home , honestly, I'm more incline for the Nikon.
Every 70-300mm lens at this price range will be soft after 200-220, also thinking on the 70-200mm f2.8 ED IF AF-S VR with a teleconverter, that I could get for about US$800-850 here in Atlanta.
What's your take on the VR lens guys?
Thank you again everybody!

IF you can get the VR and telelconverter I would go with that.

marcos, I got the Tamron 70-300 just after I got the camera, it was very cheap and had macro.

This gave me some reach, and some macro fun.

Since then..

the 50mm f1,8 (amazing value)
the 105mm f2.8 (beautiful 1:1 macro lens)
the 80-400 VR
all Nikon. I am one happy camper.

But I don't regret getting the tamron at the start, it was useful and fun.

marcos... either the sigma or the nikon can do nicely with enough light and the right settings and circumstances. This class of glass tends to be slow... so you pump up the ISO to compensate. I have the nikon ED version which I find to have better resistance to cromatic abberation etc... some others have the G version and manage to catch some lovely shots as well though some here (as already stated have been most unhappy with theirs). Bottom line is, you get what you pay for... either grab one of these and enjoy it now... or hold off until you can afford something pro level... the choice is yours.

I have the Tamron version, lots of purple fringing on mine, so yeah, might be a better option to get the Nikon ED version, but I think it's not worth it to spend so much on this calibre of glass anyway... and you do get the macro function on the Tamron... Although I got mine for free.

Marcos,

marcos wrote:Every 70-300mm lens at this price range will be soft after 200-220, also thinking on the 70-200mm f2.8 ED IF AF-S VR with a teleconverter, that I could get for about US$800-850 here in Atlanta.
What's your take on the VR lens guys?

You'll be hard pressed to find any softness in the 70-200VR.

Look at our barganis section,; it's a very popular, and a very good, lens.

At that price this one has to be pre-owned, but don't let that stop you. Make sure that it's fungus free, operates correctly ... fully check out all of its characteristics on your D70 body to make sure it's a good example, and if it passes muster, you'll be a very happy camper.

Macros,
If you can find one of the used lens of 70-200VR at that price in the US, you're winning a small lottery. Go for it and make sure it's in the good shape as Gary mentioned.

Hi Marcos
my opinion....there is really no point comparing the 70-300's with the 70-200 VR, as it is like comparing an old beat up mustang with a Ferrari F50. They are at completely the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can you beat the quality & clarity of the 70-200VR - not really

If this 70-200 you are looking at is the "real deal", for that price you should jump on it. If it isn't, start saving your dollars now as this lens IS NOT CHEAP !

However, the Nikon (G & ED), Sigma APO II and Tamron 70-300's are considered "budget" lenses....but are capable of taking good-quality photos (when used within their limitations). I believe this to be so for all these lenses.
Some of these also have a macro function included. I feel it's a good way to get a taste of what macro is about (for amateurs) - but it is far from using a "real" macro lens.
To sum these lenses up, they are like an all-in-one lens that gives you telephoto zoom & macro ability at a lower cost, however there are always trade-offs and to go the next step in either of these directions....you would need to look at serious dollars and lenses such as the 70-200VR and perhaps something like the Nikkor 105 Macro (for the macro shots).

Admittedly, the 70-200VR will give you more lee-way in lower light levels, and I am sure (as I have never used one - only read copious reviews), that this lens will always be sharper than the 70-300's....but if you're only starting out.....my advice would be to cut your teeth learning on the budget lens.....and when you feel this lens is holding your abilities back, outlay your $'s on the 70-200VR.

This is only my opinion.

Good luck in your choice.... and have fun with your camera

Hey gstark, you got me thinking, why not try to start an Atlanta chapter of D70users.com .
Aussie, very sounding advice, I took another look at the specs of the 200mm lens, to my surprise wasn't the VR, which brand new cost US$1800, can't justify the expense based on my experience (just a newbie), but also look again at the sigma 70-300 APO for the macro capabilities (which I wasn't thinking of in the begining), but decided for the nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF and a separate micro lens, micro nikkor 60mm f2.8D AF, I'll pick them out tomorrow, can't wait!
You guys tought me a lot in just one day in here, thank you , but if you don't mind, I'll have a few more in the future as I learn

diablo

ps. diablo is my high school nickname, 26 years ago, AM I THAT OLD?!

Marcos,

marcos wrote:Hey gstark, you got me thinking, why not try to start an Atlanta chapter of D70users.com .

All it takes is a few like minded souls, willing to get together occassionally with a view to enjoying each others' company, discussing photography and cameras (and computers, cars, fine wines, travel, you name it) and you're there.

Aussie, very sounding advice, I took another look at the specs of the 200mm lens, to my surprise wasn't the VR, which brand new cost US$1800,

That's more like iot for the VR; as I think I said, it sounded like too good a price. That said, the older model is still a great lens, and you wouldn't have been disappointed with it.

decided for the nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF and a separate micro lens, micro nikkor 60mm f2.8D AF, I'll pick them out tomorrow, can't wait!

Good choices; enjoy.

ps. diablo is my high school nickname, 26 years ago, AM I THAT OLD?!

Yes, but some of us are even older.

i am also new to the Dslr and i still cant see whats so bad with the 70-300g lens, sure you get what you pay for but the prices they are asking, its not like NIKON they are riping you off or anything, if seen it as low as $200AU brand new, it will be super cheap in the US!!

Take a look at this review Marcos, if you have not already

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

like he says in the review, it well worth the money

Hey Albey1, yes I have read that article, but he fails to mention the biggest difference between the G and ED, he keeps saying that he believes that they use the same optics, they don't, the main difference is the ED glass, far superior. If you shoot only small sizes like 3x5" or 4x6", at 70mm, is difficult to see the difference, over that, no comparison. Before I bought the ED version, I rented three 70-300mm lenses for US$10 each for a day, G, ED and the sigma APO and as suggested by a photographer friend of mine from New York, shot the same picture at 70mm, at 150mm and 300mm with the three lenses, compare it and make your decision, the Nikon ED did it for me, as I mentioned it has the best glass of the three. Anyways, everything from Nikon is a good buy in my view, it might sound like a cliché, but is true that you get what you pay for. :0)

Matt,

rokkstar wrote:It is a little soft sometimes, but sometimes it surprises me and is nice and sharp. THe macro is great, even at 1:2.

Think about this statement of your's for a moment.

The lens is a physical object, and its properties are basically static.

If some images are sharp, and others are soft, where, or what, is the difference?

It will not be the lens, that is a fact - for a given set of parameters it will always be soft, or it will always be sharp.

Examine your EXIF data and see what setting were in use. Examine more closely your technique while shooting - perhaps be recalling certain factors from one shoot vs another you'll be able to improve your ration of sharp to soft images.

Good point.
I think what I meant was how it is used. For example, tripod mounted it is great. Handheld bird shots, even at 1/500 are soft. Higher ISO and good light, sharp.

I know exactly what you mean, it is my technique which is soft and sharp. Now that I know what the lens can and cannot handle I am getting consistently better results from it.

Matt,

Precisely.