Nikon AF70-210mm F4-5.6D

nathan · 12th March 2003

hi, any info about the Nikon AF70-210mm F4-5.6D. currently I am using a Nikon MF 70-210mm on my F100 which is tedious to focus . so I thought of upgrading.

binbeto · 12th March 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by nathan
hi, any info about the Nikon AF70-210mm F4-5.6D. currently I am using a Nikon MF 70-210mm on my F100 which is tedious to focus . so I thought of upgrading.

Not a bad lens. Light and with decent result.

Not quite usable for the long end with TC. Very soft image.

If you have the $$ and dun mind the weight. Get a 80-200/2.8 (any model)

I think you can't find the 70-210 new.

nathan · 12th March 2003

for the price I think the 80-200/2.8 is not much of a use. you can't even get decent shoot at the zoo. imagine going to the wild shooting birds. I rather save up for the AF-S VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED but how often I need to use the lens. still can't justify. to me it is handy at the zoo and bird park. where else I can use the lens, considering the price

binbeto · 12th March 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by nathan
for the price I think the 80-200/2.8 is not much of a use. you can't even get decent shoot at the zoo. imagine going to the wild shooting birds. I rather save up for the AF-S VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED but how often I need to use the lens. still can't justify. to me it is handy at the zoo and bird park. where else I can use the lens, considering the price

Oh i see.. Who is to say that 80-200 is for zoo anyway?

It is a very good general lens for street shoot, portriats landscape etc.

However, if you think 80-200 is of not much uses. Maybe you wouldn't need the 70-210 as well.

Tupi Guy · 12th March 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by binbeto
Oh i see.. Who is to say that 80-200 is for zoo anyway?

It is a very good general lens for street shoot, portriats landscape etc.

However, if you think 80-200 is of not much uses. Maybe you wouldn't need the 70-210 as well.

I agree with u.

As for me. I'm using 70mm-300mm G-lens (of cos the speed and lens cant compare with those Pros....one la...)

and hapi with the results as I not really very high demand on my pic as i not a

pro or perfectionist, hehehe just hobby......As long i can get what i want and i

content.

But of cos if next time possible, i will buy1 80-200 ED but not the AFS la as long it has constant F2.8.

Fave shoot-- Stray Cats and Bo liao things lor......

erwinx · 12th March 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by nathan
for the price I think the 80-200/2.8 is not much of a use. you can't even get decent shoot at the zoo. imagine going to the wild shooting birds. I rather save up for the AF-S VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED but how often I need to use the lens. still can't justify. to me it is handy at the zoo and bird park. where else I can use the lens, considering the price

I don't get your logic, if 80-200/2.8 is not much of a use, seems like the 70-210/5.6 you are asking about is even less useful.

nathan · 13th March 2003

oops , 70-210mm is cheap ,I don't mind having it for its price and performance. but the 80-200mm is very expensive . I talking about price verse gain. how much money I put in and how much I gain. now I own a manual 70-210mm which I hardly use. I use the nikon 105mm for my tele shots.

Larry · 13th March 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by nathan
for the price I think the 80-200/2.8 is not much of a use. you can't even get decent shoot at the zoo. imagine going to the wild shooting birds. I rather save up for the AF-S VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED but how often I need to use the lens. still can't justify. to me it is handy at the zoo and bird park. where else I can use the lens, considering the price

/me scratch head

teleconverters? that's what i do with my 70-200... the f-stop's big but still usable considering i don't shoot much zoo-type stuff

pcman · 29th March 2003

You got yor 70-200 finally. Well done.

Quote:

Originally posted by Larry
/me scratch head

teleconverters? that's what i do with my 70-200... the f-stop's big but still usable considering i don't shoot much zoo-type stuff

pcman · 29th March 2003

You may be right 80-200mm that may not be sufficient for ZOO or Bird Park. But I found it very useful in portrait and general shooting. It sharp but with some pincushion distortion at 200mm. At least in my case with my F100.

Quote:

Originally posted by nathan
for the price I think the 80-200/2.8 is not much of a use. you can't even get decent shoot at the zoo. imagine going to the wild shooting birds. I rather save up for the AF-S VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED but how often I need to use the lens. still can't justify. to me it is handy at the zoo and bird park. where else I can use the lens, considering the price

dreamseeker · 30th March 2003

Nathan,

I tend to agree with you. When I first started out in photography, the AF80-200 f2.8 lens was beyond my budget.
SO I bought a AF70-210 F4-5.6D which was within my reach. The 80-200 was about $1.2k and the 70-210 was only $550.

Due to my type of my shooting, I have use this lens less than
10 times. So, it was really value for money. Else, I would have a big investment sitting in the dry box.

A couple of weeks ago, I thought of getting rid of it. But last week, a friend ask me to cover a event for her and I had to use the 70-210. So, I guess it comes in useful when I need it and it will remain in the dry box again.

No point for me to sell it as it may not fetch anything worthy.

12th March 2003	#1
nathan Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: singapore CCK YEW TEE Posts: 362	Nikon AF70-210mm F4-5.6D hi, any info about the Nikon AF70-210mm F4-5.6D. currently I am using a Nikon MF 70-210mm on my F100 which is tedious to focus . so I thought of upgrading.

13th March 2003	#7
nathan Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: singapore CCK YEW TEE Posts: 362	oops , 70-210mm is cheap ,I don't mind having it for its price and performance. but the 80-200mm is very expensive . I talking about price verse gain. how much money I put in and how much I gain. now I own a manual 70-210mm which I hardly use. I use the nikon 105mm for my tele shots.

30th March 2003	#11
dreamseeker Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 354	Nathan, I tend to agree with you. When I first started out in photography, the AF80-200 f2.8 lens was beyond my budget. SO I bought a AF70-210 F4-5.6D which was within my reach. The 80-200 was about $1.2k and the 70-210 was only $550. Due to my type of my shooting, I have use this lens less than 10 times. So, it was really value for money. Else, I would have a big investment sitting in the dry box. A couple of weeks ago, I thought of getting rid of it. But last week, a friend ask me to cover a event for her and I had to use the 70-210. So, I guess it comes in useful when I need it and it will remain in the dry box again. No point for me to sell it as it may not fetch anything worthy.