Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR enquire

[zzkkc]

Hi

Would like to enquire about Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR lens.
Compare to Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR picture sharpness is it great diff? other than price diff and F stop

Can anybody advise

[wildstallion]

Huge difference in image quality, you get what you pay for!

[vaxvms]

hwo to compare?
even 70-200 f2.8 w/o VR also will win I think

[zzkkc]

Wow the differences really so great

[psychobiologist]

Originally Posted by zzkkc Wow the differences really so great

actually the latest version, the 70-300mm VR-ED is pretty good, its sharp, even at 300mm the performance is good. the ED version is not bad, but soft at the telephoto end, and the NON-ed version is the worst! terrible.

of course cannot compare to 70-200mm lah.. thats a different class altogether, but shooting anything else, from nature, moving around with light lense etc (750grams), the 70-300mm VR/ED performs pretty well.

go try it out

[spazzer]

the difference for the lenses are really great however if the quality is not wat u want than go for 70-300 as it is much lighter

[zzkkc]

As I am using Nikon D2x would like to know which lens produce the best output with the combination

[zac08]

Originally Posted by wildstallion Huge difference in image quality, you get what you pay for!

Actually, depends on the light condition.

Look at this old example from Jeanie :

Test

Whole thread :

AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

[zac08]

Originally Posted by zzkkc As I am using Nikon D2x would like to know which lens produce the best output with the combination

If you got the CASH and you're willing to pay for the quality, then stick to the 70-200

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by zac08 Actually, depends on the light condition. Look at this old example from Jeanie : Test Whole thread : AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Depends what camera was being used and at what quality and resolution. The sensor may have been ineffective in utilizing all of the 70-200's power whilst the 70-300 was used at its limit.

Also, 5.6 is already quite small. the 70-200 comes into its element from 2.8-4. The 70-300 obviously cannot compare and this is why it is nothing compared to the 70-200.

The 70-300 has its benefits, I have the non VR version and non ED version, been using it for years and still love its lightness and compactness, but it cannot be compared to the 70-200 at all.

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by zzkkc As I am using Nikon D2x would like to know which lens produce the best output with the combination

Dont get the 70-300, i think u ll be dissapointed with its resolution on the D2X

[robotech]

Originally Posted by zzkkc As I am using Nikon D2x would like to know which lens produce the best output with the combination

Go for the 70-200..It's only about 1/2 the price of the D2x. Unless it's too heavy for you.

[jnet6]

How to compare between apple and orange?

[westwest2]

Originally Posted by zzkkc As I am using Nikon D2x would like to know which lens produce the best output with the combination

er...u got such powerful camera but want to get a 70-300...

[scenar]

Originally Posted by zzkkc As I am using Nikon D2x would like to know which lens produce the best output with the combination

the 70-300 prob will be disappointing with the d2x.

Using the 70-200 + 1.4x TC to get 280mm will give u better results even!

The sensor of the d2x would demand much more of the lens than say a d50/d70

[zac08]

Originally Posted by wildstallion Depends what camera was being used and at what quality and resolution. The sensor may have been ineffective in utilizing all of the 70-200's power whilst the 70-300 was used at its limit. Also, 5.6 is already quite small. the 70-200 comes into its element from 2.8-4. The 70-300 obviously cannot compare and this is why it is nothing compared to the 70-200. The 70-300 has its benefits, I have the non VR version and non ED version, been using it for years and still love its lightness and compactness, but it cannot be compared to the 70-200 at all.

She was testing them out on a D200. It's a compact piece for travelling but in the low light conditions, I'd still go for the trinity piece of course. But for the budget consious, this 70-300 may be a pretty decent piece in good light.

[zzkkc]

noted with thanks for all the advise since D2x so depend on the lens to output better photo will consider 70-200 f2.8

[hacknet]

if you had a chance to fiddle around with the 70-200mm f2.8 you wouldnt want to go near the 70-300mm. its a completely different animal. the glass on the 70-200 f2.8 is just fantastic, super crisp at f4. you'd have to shoot at f8 to get anything like that on the 70-300mm.

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by zzkkc noted with thanks for all the advise since D2x so depend on the lens to output better photo will consider 70-200 f2.8

Youd be wasting the money you spent on the D2X if you use the 70-300, it will out resolve it instantly i reckon, which may be fine for the odd use where u need a light weight setup, but really, you need damn good quality lenses to bring out the best in the D2X. Lenses make the difference.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by wildstallion Youd be wasting the money you spent on the D2X if you use the 70-300, it will out resolve it instantly i reckon, which may be fine for the odd use where u need a light weight setup, but really, you need damn good quality lenses to bring out the best in the D2X. Lenses make the difference.

D2X is very useful for reviewing lenses..