DSLRUsers.com

Hi All,

Ok I am about to hit the shops for my D70
Definitely will get the kit Nikon 18-70 lens
Also will definitely buy a 70-300 lens as part of the deal

But which one?

Nikon 70-300 G
(Nikon 70-300 ED out of my price range)
Tamron 70-300
Sigma 70-300

Any insight appreciated


John

John

I had exactly the same dilemma.

I opted for the Tamron, because

- I figured that a very cheap Nikon probably wouldn't be any better than a Tamron or Sigma
- the Tamron and Sigma lenses have a macro capability whereas the Nikon does not (and I have enjoyed using the 1:2 macro - I hope to get a serious macro lens later, but for now, it will do)
- I had a Tamron 28mm with my Olympus OM-1 many years ago, and it was a really good lens.

I have been very happy with the Tamron - I got it and a good UV filter for $255. Obviously, we are at the lowest end of the lens range, but for the money, it is good stuff.

cheers

Ask that question to three people and you are more than likely to get three different answers

I got the 70-300G (nikkor) I have written my thoughts on it here
http://potofgrass.ath.cx/index.php?modu ... 11&meid=16

I have no problems with this lens... in fact I think it has delivered a little more than I expected for the price...

here is one of my favorite photos with the lens

First get the Nikon 70-300
Second the Tamron 70-300
I did not have them but seen lot of nice photos from Nikkor 70-300

Out of the choices, I'd recommend the Nikkor G perhaps for the expected better resale value later on should you wish to upgrade.
The ED version probably isn't worth the extra, as it's several times the cost of the G and adds marginal features - metal lens mount, aperture ring, and 1 ED front element.

If there's no foreseeable upgrade, the Tamron would be better value IMO, as it has all the features of the Nikkor ED (plus macro capability as Greg pointed out) for a similar price to the Nikkor G.

Don't forget the Quantaray lens

From what I have seen on the DRReview forum, the lens seems to be very good and similar in price to the Nikon G series lens.

Cheers

Graham PS - Only 6893 pages left in the Nikon D70 manual to read Jeepers, it's huge!

bago100 wrote:Only 6893 pages left in the Nikon D70 manual to read Jeepers, it's huge!

Good work Graham - then you can get Thom Hogan's book and start working through that!

Good to here the 70-300G is not all bad. I have one for my film SLR.

I am doing my little bit of research before buying a D70 and wondered would I be better of selling up all my film gear and buying new stuff. But after reading this thread I think I'll keep mine for when my D70 arrives.

Not to highjack the thread but what other lense should I get ?Portraits of the kids ect or will the 18-70 be enough, maybe a 50mm f/1.8 as described in MHD's link

MATT

MATT wrote:Good to here the 70-300G is not all bad. I have one for my film SLR.

I am doing my little bit of research before buying a D70 and wondered would I be better of selling up all my film gear and buying new stuff. But after reading this thread I think I'll keep mine for when my D70 arrives.

Not to highjack the thread but what other lense should I get ?Portraits of the kids ect or will the 18-70 be enough, maybe a 50mm f/1.8 as described in MHD's link

MATT

Hey Matt,
Just want to stir you up little bit, save your buck for the 85/ 1.4, you won't disappoint with it.

Get the 70-300mm G lens - the money you save by not getting the 70-300mm ED lens you can use to get the 50mm 1.8 lens - which is the best bang for buck Nikon lens you can get! You can get the 50mm 1.8 lens brand new for under $200.

Cheers
Kristine

Just to continue the highjack and to show you how nice the 50 f/1.8 is...

and

were taken with the 50/1.8

MHD,
Look at her face, cute!!!!
Great lens at its price.

NIce photos, new for $200?? Bentleys just quoted me $339.

Will shop around on that one.

cheers
matt

Sorry for the Highjack!!

WAY overpriced... even at Fletchers I managed to get a quote for $260

I think jd-online (melbourne) has a few on ebay.com.au check his prices

MATT wrote:NIce photos, new for $200?? Bentleys just quoted me $339.

Will shop around on that one.

cheers
matt

Sorry for the Highjack!!

Matt, I got mine last saturday for $195 from JD Online in Melbourne. It is a grey of course, but pretty low risk with this lens.

Birddog,

On the streangths of some of your posts earlier in the forum and reserch I had don .... I just added the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 to my collection. Have done some testing with it and am VERY happy. Picked it up second hand - excellent conditionand only $400. I'm a happy camper. Have played with the 50mm 1.8 - also very impressed - but it was ouclassed by the 85mm IMHO so I sold my 50mm to a friend.

I would recommend both for portraits. Also if you have the $$$$ I have found the 17-55mm DX 2.8 to be an incredible (non-prime) for portraiture as well.

Thanks Jordan, great to read your update, hope we will meet each other one day near.

look forwar to it

Matt

I got mine from JD-Online Shop.

Cheers
Kristine

MHD

Great shots. Can you share some of your camera setup details as I'm struggling getting my skin tones right.

Do you adjust Hue?
Is your white balance Auto -1
Saturation?
Do you have a custom curve loaded
Or do you do it all in NEF and this is all irrelevant

Thanks for your help

No, not NEF

First picture was Custom WB (used a white card to measure)
Second one was Auto

One thing I found that is if you are using fill flash the flash WB setting works very well

I recommend you seriously consider the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II. Very good value for money lens.

The build quality isn't so great (a little plasticky), but the optics are excellent, arguably the best out of all the consumer 70-300mm lenses.

Yep, JD-Online sell for $195 or if you want a warranty go to Vanbar in Melb/NSW and pay $240.

A question.

70-300 looks like a value for money. Is it worth the money to go a step further and get a ED lens? I probably won't get a wide angle. I'm into architecture and take twilight photos.

I read that the Nikkor 70-300 AF is a bit slow. Is there any faster lens than this?

kipper wrote:Yep, JD-Online sell for $195 or if you want a warranty go to Vanbar in Melb/NSW and pay $240.

Hi All
HKsupplies is selling the 70-300G $180.00 shipped to your door, Poon saw the quoted price and he offered the new price once he's in Australia.
Why settle for Tamron or something else in this range?

That's certainly a terrific price for the 70-300g lens

Just as a comparison, how much approximately would the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II cost?


Thanks

Well done Santa Poon and Elf Birddog, I will be getting one of those for sure.

Just overheard a convo Mr Poon remarked how the 70-300's are in short supply and backordered. If you're after one in a hurry, you might be disappointed. If you're wanting to sell yours to upgrade to better glass, now is as good a time as any!

bago100 wrote:That's certainly a terrific price for the 70-300g lens

Just as a comparison, how much approximately would the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II cost?


Thanks

I've got mine thru B&H about a month ago.

Grey 50mm 1.8 (US 89.00 ) + Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II US $210.00) + shipping - all for AUS $470.00 ( and No GST , under $500.00 ).

Cheers

Peter

This is one of the questions I had about the *-300mm, and after reading all your comments I'm as wise as ever (dumb as a post).



Other than the price, I'm not too sure of the pros and cons of each one...

I have to tell this story.

When I first decided to get into photography I bought the F80 with 70-300 and kit lens. I never really looked into the different names the telephoto, and assumed I got the cheapest one (being that I paid less than anywhere else I could find, about $525 US. It wasn't until this forum that I actually fished it out to check if it was indeed the G. To my surprise it was the ED. Weird, and I thought I had the cheapo.

THe way I look at it, the ED isn't so much better than the G to justify the extra money. People post pictures on here with the G lens that do not come off cheap. Of course we always hear about how its the photographer and not his equipment (I'm getting bored of that one) but it is true. I think that both lenses are temporary fixes until you're ready to upgrade to something really spectacular (80-400 VR or 70-200 vr) so go with the most reasonable one, take pictures that are atleast as good as the ED, and then upgrade in due time.

As far as the ED and the G goes, do the G unless you aren't going to be upgrading ever again. I don't know about the SIgma, but I would be sorely tempted for the Macro qualities alone.

G'day,
I haven't tried the other lenses but having used the Sigma 70-300 APO it produced some really nice images and the macro stuff was fun... Sigma may have felt a little "plasticky" and the "feel" didn;t seem to inspire confience, but the images were nice and I spose that's all that really counts... Spose it might depend on whether you wanna play with macro stuff or not...

Since upgraded to the 80-400VR and wow... Spose it should for lotsa $ in comparison tho...

For what it's worth

Cheers,
Mudder

Okay, for my next dumb question:

Doesn't the Nikkor 70-300 do macro shots? I was under the impression (from reading one of the camera sites selling it) that it does?

Or is it "not as good", or not really designed to do it?

TVM

Maximus wrote::) Okay, for my next dumb question:

Doesn't the Nikkor 70-300 do macro shots? I was under the impression (from reading one of the camera sites selling it) that it does?

Or is it "not as good", or not really designed to do it?

TVM

Maximus,

Not the G series; I don't know about the other Nikkors, but a quick visit to Maxwell's should provide the answer.

Ty for the info gstark. Seems I shouldn't believe everything I read on a camerastore's website. Who would have thunk it?