Which 70-300mm tele to choose?

[Bernard Ong]

Hi, i am using a Nikon F80. Thinking to get a 70-300mm telephoto zoom lens. Great for travel without the hassle to carry a f/2.8 version. Which one would you suggest? Perhaps those with the following lens can share their experience:

1) Nikkor 70-300 ED
2) Nikkor 70-210mm (Discontinued but avail in 2nd hand shops)
3) Nikkor 75-300mm (Discontinued but avail in 2nd hand shops)
4) Sigma 70-300 APO (with red ring)
5) Tamron 70-300 LD

Thanks for advice.

 

[Bernard Ong]

Nobody has the above lens?

 

[jksc]

I have the 70-300ED....
light in weight, usable up to 200mm but slow focus.... :dunno:

have you consider the Nikon 28-200 f3.5-5.6? the image is sharper and faster focus speed...

 

[hansia]

Have used:

1. 75-300 f/4.5-5.6
2. 70-210 f/4-5.6 (non-D)
3. 70-210 f/4

General comments:
1. Focusing - rather slow on the first and third. But the first has a focus limiter to restrict the focusing range, which can be useful sometimes.

2. Sharpness - second one is the best in terms of sharpness, and it's the lightest at 500+ grams. Performance is very close for all three.

On the negatives:
3. 75-300 is quite long, and suffers from zoom slide. Not too heavy to carry, but you'll be limited to shoot under good lighting conditions at 300mm.

Overall, prefer 70-210 f/4. A good balance for me. Gives a stop more light than the other two, and the light falloff isnt bad at all wide open.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I've got the 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Super Macro II. For the price I think you'll be hard pressed to find a sharper lens in the range, and the colors are to die for, really really warm. You can switch it to macro mode from 200-300mm which gives you 1:2. Focusing is kinda slow though, this lens excels with lotsa light, and I mean LOTSA light.

 

[Allan Teo]

Hi
I am using the tamrom XR 28-300 v fast focus
some samples compared to 80400VR

http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/allan_teo_3000

Allan

 

[sykestang]

I have the 70-300ED....
light in weight, usable up to 200mm but slow focus.... :dunno:

have you consider the Nikon 28-200 f3.5-5.6? the image is sharper and faster focus speed...

You sure the AF28-200 f/3.5-5.6G gives your sharper images??? I personally own this lens, but sold it in 2 weeks time due to its poor image quality and soft! No offense.

For me, I would go for Nikon AF70-300ED f/4.5-5.6, I have tried this lens before, borrowed from my friend, the image is quite ok and is acceptable.

However if 300mm zoom is not really what you look for, I would personally recommend you to get a 2nd hand AF80-200 f/2.8 ED, (either 1-touch or 2-touch). Believe me, the image would be much more superb and is almost similar if not better than the current AFS70-200VR f/2.8G whch cost $3k. For info, a new AF80-200 f/2.8D ED 2-touch version cost around $1.6K and a 2nd hand one ranges from $1k-$1.2k.

If you've budget constraint, get the 2nd hand AF80-200 f/2.8D ED 1-touch version, which is around $680-$800. I saw Prime Photo (beside CP) have got one in quite good cond.

 

[gadrian]

Ehh.. you sure you talking about the 28-200 G version.. I own this lens.. and am satisfied with its sharpness.. it is actually sharper then the more expensive.. 24-120 AF-S VR..

Now if you are comparing with the 28-70 then you go figure.. a 560.00 lens versus at 2.6K lens.. hmm

I personally feel the 28-200 AF-D G lens is very sharp.. with some CA.. but managable.. only gripe is the plastic lens mounting.. else a great lens.. though I doubt that should be of a concern since the lens is bloody light..

the 28-200 Tamron and 28-300 Tamron XR are both excellent lenses.. cant go wrong with them..

between the 70-300 AF-D ED and the 70-300 AF-G.. I would go for the AF-D ED version.. it produces much better images.. with less CA then the G version.. also it features a metal lens mount..

Have fun..

 

[sam_always]

AF80-200 f/2.8 ED, (either 1-touch or 2-touch).

What is the diff between 1-touch and 2-touch? can elaborate more? thanks

 

[gadrian]

What is the diff between 1-touch and 2-touch? can elaborate more? thanks

1 touch.. zoom and focus are both on the same one ring.. lens is heavy.. and doesnt feature a tripod collar..

2 touch.. one ring for zoom.. and one ring for focus.. tripod collar is supplied.. but does it make a diff.. hmm..

 

[sam_always]

oic... i know for sure 2-touch is a IF. how about 1-touch? is it also IF? 1-touch looks like MF lens to me... :think:

 

[mpenza]

Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II is one of the sharpest among consumer lenses with similar zoom. It's also about 30-40% of the weight of a 80-200 f2.8. I'm not too sure about the performance on film cameras though as I've only used it on a DSLR.

 

[gadrian]

oic... i know for sure 2-touch is a IF. how about 1-touch? is it also IF? 1-touch looks like MF lens to me... :think:

both are IF and AF-D lenses..

 

[gooseberry]

Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II is one of the sharpest among consumer lenses with similar zoom. It's also about 30-40% of the weight of a 80-200 f2.8. I'm not too sure about the performance on film cameras though as I've only used it on a DSLR.

I'd have to agree with mpenza, this lens is very good value for money. A little plasticky in terms of construction and a little slow in focussing, but gives great results.

 

[dropzone]

i am considering the sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II (300+) and the Nikon 70-300 ED (600+). Is there any significant difference between the 2 lens, in terms of focusing speed, weight, quality of images, ability to do macro shots? Hehe, I know the Nikon lens design is nicer, one thing for sure.

 

[mpenza]

Practical Photography rate the Sigma lens better than the Nikon 70-300 ED in one of the issues if I remember correctly. The APO element reduces chromatic abberation.

 

[gooseberry]

Most reviews I've seen say that image quality wise the Sigma is better than the Nikon 70-300mm ED, has less CA, probably because the Sigma has 3 APO elements, while the Nikon only has 1 ED element.

At half the cost of the Nikon 70-300mm, I've been very pleased with the results I'm getting from the Sigma in terms of image quality - no match for the Nikon 70-200mm VR, but that one costs almost 10 times more.

The Sigma can also do macro up to 1:2.

Focussing speed, not much difference between the two.

Design wise, the Sigma is not very good. Looks quite funny actually, when you do macro the lens extends the front column out quite far - looks like a black pipe sticking out the front of your lens.

If you don't mind the looks and the plasticky feel of the Sigma, it gives great results for the price paid.

 

[Waz]

oic... i know for sure 2-touch is a IF. how about 1-touch? is it also IF? 1-touch looks like MF lens to me... :think:

Hi there,

I am using one. AUTO FOCUS.
Better than the 70-300mmG i used to have.
Love the the f2.8.

Heavy though. Practices to perfect the shooting technique when at zoom.
Never regret buying this second hand one. No tripod collar & don't need one coz needs portability (& it is manageable).

fyi, I saw @Alex Photo selling a Tokina 80-200mmf2.8 ATX PRO 828 at $750.

 

[MichaelLee]

Nikon 70-300mm ED is about $680 yet its image quality is worse off comparing to Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II, of which is at $350.

How about the focussing ? Do Nikon provide fasster focusing ?

Btw..why Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 LD Macro is not mentioned ? Little user or quaility is no good at all ?

 

[mpenza]

Tamron is supposed to be as good as the Sigma. It's not so commonly stocked in shops though.