Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between lenses (Nikon)

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and the
other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more expensive
one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

As an aside, I currently have an older Nikon 80-200 f 4.5, the one with the
focus and zoom on one ring, AI conversion (weighs a ton). While I would not
be able to use all the functions on my D70 with this lens, it just means
having to use a meter, and I can't see myself even using this lens all that
much. Would just using the older lens be a better option optically, even
though it's a bit of a hassle? When used with my old 35mm camera the result
are stunning, but I have not done a comparison between both lenses.

The problem I seem to have is that I got the D70 so I could use my older
lenses, but having bought the kit I can see the advantages of autofocus and
using all the other gizmos that come with a CPU lens on the camera, even
though I wouldn't use the longer lenses all that much. (I used to shoot
sports exclusively -- for a living.) Now I just want good photos.

Thanks for any and all imput.

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:36:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon <sheldon@xxxxxxxxsopris.net> wrote:

> Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100
> and the other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the
> more expensive one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
page:

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/te...
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/te...

The big differnce is that one has an aperture ring and the other
doesn't.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:36:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:1107g5gkial1of6@news.supernews.com...
> Sheldon <sheldon@xxxxxxxxsopris.net> wrote:
>
> > Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100
> > and the other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the
> > more expensive one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?
>
> Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
> page:
>
>
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/te...
>
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/te...
>
> The big differnce is that one has an aperture ring and the other
> doesn't.
>
> Andrew.

Well, one is an AI lens, so I assume you could use that one with older
cameras. Still, I always thought the ED lenses were supposed to be better.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:41:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> writes:

> Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and the
> other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more expensive
> one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?
>
> As an aside, I currently have an older Nikon 80-200 f 4.5, the one with the
> focus and zoom on one ring, AI conversion (weighs a ton). While I would not
> be able to use all the functions on my D70 with this lens, it just means
> having to use a meter, and I can't see myself even using this lens all that
> much. Would just using the older lens be a better option optically, even
> though it's a bit of a hassle? When used with my old 35mm camera the result
> are stunning, but I have not done a comparison between both lenses.

You don't need a separate meter -- just some willingness to
experiment, and look at the histograms. That's slower but produces
much better exposures than "auto", of course.

I still use a bunch of my manual-focus lenses, all fast primes as it
turns out :-). I find it worth it. But then I spent a lot of time
photographing with a Leica M3 years ago -- no meter. And didn't have
program auto-exposure in *any* camera until 1994. I got used to
keeping track of the exposures around the area I was working in in my
head.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

''D'' type is sharper at the edges.
"Sheldon" <sheldon@REMOVEsopris.net> wrote in message
news:xsWdnfzPdbTWhZnfRVn-1A@comcast.com...
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1107g5gkial1of6@news.supernews.com...
>> Sheldon <sheldon@xxxxxxxxsopris.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100
>> > and the other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the
>> > more expensive one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?
>>
>> Optically, they're very similar. See the curves at the bottom of the
>> page:
>>
>>
> http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/te...
>>
> http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/te...
>>
>> The big differnce is that one has an aperture ring and the other
>> doesn't.
>>
>> Andrew.
>
> Well, one is an AI lens, so I assume you could use that one with older
> cameras. Still, I always thought the ED lenses were supposed to be
> better.
>
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Witek" <vtecindustrialCUT-OUT@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:gBVMd.272138$8l.109765@pd7tw1no...
> ''D'' type is sharper at the edges.

The cheaper lens is a G type lens. Aside from the fact that it doesn't have
an aperture ring, would I get the same quality images with this cheaper lens
as I am with the ED lens that came with my D70? I can't believe there's a
$200 difference between the lenses, and that I can get a Nikon zoom lens
"new" for around $100. There has to be a catch. What is it?

The lens that comes with the kit (the one that I have) has no aperture ring
and is an ED lens. The idea of having another zoom lens that picks up where
the kit lens leaves off is very tempting.

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:55:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I have one and I really can't give you a comment yet, since I've only
used it once, but it works fine. Here's what some others say:

http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Nikon_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoo...

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

I've found the kit lens to be ideal for most of my needs and haven't
played with this one yet. I guess I'm also jumpy about changing lenses
too frequently and encountering the much discussed dust problem. ;o)
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 12:56:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:31:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>
>"Witek" <vtecindustrialCUT-OUT@sprint.ca> wrote in message
>news:gBVMd.272138$8l.109765@pd7tw1no...
>> ''D'' type is sharper at the edges.
>
>The cheaper lens is a G type lens. Aside from the fact that it doesn't have
>an aperture ring, would I get the same quality images with this cheaper lens
>as I am with the ED lens that came with my D70? I can't believe there's a
>$200 difference between the lenses, and that I can get a Nikon zoom lens
>"new" for around $100. There has to be a catch. What is it?

Seems to have a mediocre rating at
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 8:48:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2braz5x0a.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> writes:
>
> > Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and
the
> > other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more
expensive
> > one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?
> >
> > As an aside, I currently have an older Nikon 80-200 f 4.5, the one with
the
> > focus and zoom on one ring, AI conversion (weighs a ton). While I would
not
> > be able to use all the functions on my D70 with this lens, it just means
> > having to use a meter, and I can't see myself even using this lens all
that
> > much. Would just using the older lens be a better option optically,
even
> > though it's a bit of a hassle? When used with my old 35mm camera the
result
> > are stunning, but I have not done a comparison between both lenses.
>
> You don't need a separate meter -- just some willingness to
> experiment, and look at the histograms. That's slower but produces
> much better exposures than "auto", of course.
>
> I still use a bunch of my manual-focus lenses, all fast primes as it
> turns out :-). I find it worth it. But then I spent a lot of time
> photographing with a Leica M3 years ago -- no meter. And didn't have
> program auto-exposure in *any* camera until 1994. I got used to
> keeping track of the exposures around the area I was working in in my
> head.

When I was working the pro ski circuit, one of the guys would wet his finger
and stick it up in the air, like checking for wind, and then announce to us
all the proper exposure. Damn if he wasn't right almost every time. Never
saw him use a meter.

Histogram idea is a good one. Thanks.

Sheldon
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:04:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rjn901lnq7atvssmfjh5eeg2fk32nu17vk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:31:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Witek" <vtecindustrialCUT-OUT@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> >news:gBVMd.272138$8l.109765@pd7tw1no...
> >> ''D'' type is sharper at the edges.
> >
> >The cheaper lens is a G type lens. Aside from the fact that it doesn't
have
> >an aperture ring, would I get the same quality images with this cheaper
lens
> >as I am with the ED lens that came with my D70? I can't believe there's
a
> >$200 difference between the lenses, and that I can get a Nikon zoom lens
> >"new" for around $100. There has to be a catch. What is it?
>
> Seems to have a mediocre rating at
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html

They certainly like my old 80-200. I guess it's a classic now. Could be a
much better bet than going with the new AF lens. Just have to use it in
manual mode.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:22:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107604536.090775.252870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I have one and I really can't give you a comment yet, since I've only
> used it once, but it works fine. Here's what some others say:
>
>
http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Nikon_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoo...
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm
>
> I've found the kit lens to be ideal for most of my needs and haven't
> played with this one yet. I guess I'm also jumpy about changing lenses
> too frequently and encountering the much discussed dust problem. ;o)

While my main lens will probably be the kit lens, which gets excellent
reviews and covers most situations, being squeamish about changing lenses
kind of defeats the purpose of having a camera with interchangeable lenses.

I'd be interested in a posting after you've had a chance to play with it
more.

Thanks.

Sheldon
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:25:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and the
>other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more expensive
>one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?

Many people seem to say the ED is worth it in comments here, but
most reviews I see on the net say it isn't worth it, and optically
they're both the same, nothing to write home about. Personally,
I'm hoping Nikon will make an ED VR f4.5- EF-S in that range, but
until that happens I'm seriously considering getting the G just
to tide me over. How bad can it be, and in bright light the 300mm
(for us old 35mm types, FOV of a 450mm) would be cool. For $100,
it's worth it just to try it, I'd think. I did chase the 70-210
which Ken Rockwell recommends, but only found one used at a dealer,
and that was sold on. Seeing as all my old lenses have fungus
inside, I'd be hesitant to buy an old one anyway.. even just a
tiny bit of contamination will make an old lens worse than this
new one. My advice: go with the $100 one, and hope for a cheap
VR version in the future.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <2K6dnW96jNNp7JjfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@REMOVEsopris.net> wrote:
>"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:rjn901lnq7atvssmfjh5eeg2fk32nu17vk@4ax.com...

[ ... ]

>> Seems to have a mediocre rating at
>> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html
>
>They certainly like my old 80-200. I guess it's a classic now. Could be a
>much better bet than going with the new AF lens. Just have to use it in
>manual mode.

Which may or may not be a problem, depending on the nature of
your photography. If you are photographing stationary objects, with
plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
metering in the camera.

I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
one.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:10:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

>
> When I was working the pro ski circuit, one of the guys would wet his finger
> and stick it up in the air, like checking for wind, and then announce to us
> all the proper exposure. Damn if he wasn't right almost every time. Never
> saw him use a meter.


On a sunny day that would be any reciprocal of Sunny-16.
Except if the subject is getting light reflected from the snow, then
close 1/2 to 1 stop.

On a very thin cloud or heavy haze day that would be 1 stop open from there.

On a light cloudy day open an other stop.

Under a heavy overcast, another stop.

I'd surprised if he was ever wrong at all.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:11:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:cu46or$nr8$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <2K6dnW96jNNp7JjfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
> Sheldon <sheldon@REMOVEsopris.net> wrote:
>>"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:rjn901lnq7atvssmfjh5eeg2fk32nu17vk@4ax.com...
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> Seems to have a mediocre rating at
>>> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html
>>
>>They certainly like my old 80-200. I guess it's a classic now. Could be
>>a
>>much better bet than going with the new AF lens. Just have to use it in
>>manual mode.
>
> Which may or may not be a problem, depending on the nature of
> your photography. If you are photographing stationary objects, with
> plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
> histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
> lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
> built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
> typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
> metering in the camera.
>
> I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
> conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
> says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
> by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
> one.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.

I saw his list, and apparently he sticks with it. I just don't understand
why there wasn't a way to just use the meter with these older lenses without
all the other bells and whistles. On that particular lens the one ring for
both focus and zoom is fantastic, and I hate where they place the manual
focus ring on the new autofocus lenses. I guess they figure nobody wants to
focus by hand anymore. Autofocus is great, but I could live without it for
a handful of specialty lenses. Just give me a behind the lens meter

Sheldon
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 3:36:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:11:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>I saw his list, and apparently he sticks with it. I just don't understand
>why there wasn't a way to just use the meter with these older lenses without
>all the other bells and whistles. On that particular lens the one ring for
>both focus and zoom is fantastic, and I hate where they place the manual
>focus ring on the new autofocus lenses. I guess they figure nobody wants to
>focus by hand anymore. Autofocus is great, but I could live without it for
>a handful of specialty lenses. Just give me a behind the lens meter

Have you actually tried to manually focus at a distance at 400mm at max
aperture with the D70? It can be very tough. The focusing screen on the D70
is not very helpful.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:03:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:98lc01hclu573jr2ek681da7815bmr1k6i@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:11:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>I saw his list, and apparently he sticks with it. I just don't understand
>>why there wasn't a way to just use the meter with these older lenses
>>without
>>all the other bells and whistles. On that particular lens the one ring
>>for
>>both focus and zoom is fantastic, and I hate where they place the manual
>>focus ring on the new autofocus lenses. I guess they figure nobody wants
>>to
>>focus by hand anymore. Autofocus is great, but I could live without it
>>for
>>a handful of specialty lenses. Just give me a behind the lens meter
>
> Have you actually tried to manually focus at a distance at 400mm at max
> aperture with the D70? It can be very tough. The focusing screen on the
> D70
> is not very helpful.

Actually, I replaced all the screens on my old Nikons with clear centers. I
hated the "helpful" screens as they blocked the center of view. Also, even
though I have to focus the lens manually when I use a non AF lens, it still
seems to read focus and tell you if you are locked on. Same green dot comes
up when you are focused within a focus area.

While I used to shoot a lot of sports, the kit lens seems to cover most of
my needs now. I do have a micro lens, and that will focus way, way down,
but I have to use a meter and figure on a slight increase in exposure to
compensate. Of course, when you use a Micro or Macro lens, the subject is
rarely moving.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:13:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:25:23 +0200, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ken
Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm hoping Nikon will make an ED VR f4.5- EF-S in that range, but

The 70-200mm VR is stellar by itself quite good with a TC. I'm using the
2x.

>new one. My advice: go with the $100 one, and hope for a cheap
>VR version in the future.

I believe you'll be waiting a very long time VR != cheap!
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 12:18:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cu5c0i$43i$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne- <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Sheldon wrote:
>
>>
>> When I was working the pro ski circuit, one of the guys would wet his finger
>> and stick it up in the air, like checking for wind, and then announce to us
>> all the proper exposure. Damn if he wasn't right almost every time. Never
>> saw him use a meter.
>
>
>On a sunny day that would be any reciprocal of Sunny-16.
>Except if the subject is getting light reflected from the snow, then
>close 1/2 to 1 stop.
>
>On a very thin cloud or heavy haze day that would be 1 stop open from there.
>
>On a light cloudy day open an other stop.
>
>Under a heavy overcast, another stop.
>
>I'd surprised if he was ever wrong at all.

Quite. That's how I learned (with the Agfa fold-out my father used),
although we did have a hand-held Weston to check.

The advantage of automatic exposure modes is that they can adjust the
exposure as your subject moves from shadow to sunlight, or vice-versa.
That's sometimes important to me (I mostly shoot motorsports).
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 1:26:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <_pGdnY3u78RO0pvfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news:cu46or$nr8$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...

[ ... ]

>> I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
>> conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
>> says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
>> by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
>> one.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> DoN.
>
>I saw his list, and apparently he sticks with it.

Actually -- not always. The 80-200mm is on the list (or at
least it was), but he no longer converts these lenses.

> I just don't understand
>why there wasn't a way to just use the meter with these older lenses without
>all the other bells and whistles.

There *is* -- on the N90s. Note that while on the D70 there is
a single sensor for the tab which says that the lens is fully stopped
down, on the N90s (and presumably others, but this is the one which I
know of the later cameras), there is a second tab, which rotates through
about 60 degrees, starting from about half-way between the TDC of the
lens mount ring and the index mark for inserting the lens. While the
other simply verifies that the lens is fully stopped down, this one
tells the camera exactly *which* aperture you are set to.

The alternative is to allow stopping the lens down while
metering, and that also seems to require a CPU-equipped lens just to do
the depth-of-field preview stopdown on the D70. (And to take some
charge out of the battery as well.)

Some features from the N90s which it would have been nice to
retain, but that would have made it cost more, and I might still be
using the N90s as converted by Kodak to digital for the AP (NC2000e/c).
The camera body was nice, but he conversion make it *quite* heavy. :-)

> On that particular lens the one ring for
>both focus and zoom is fantastic, and I hate where they place the manual
>focus ring on the new autofocus lenses. I guess they figure nobody wants to
>focus by hand anymore. Autofocus is great, but I could live without it for
>a handful of specialty lenses. Just give me a behind the lens meter

Amen.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 2:57:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Well, the G version (the cheap one) has a plastic mount. That scares me.


"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:54S9yHAzuSBCFwe8@objectech.co.uk...
> Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>>Nikon seems to make two zoom AF lenses (70-300). One is around $100 and
>>the
>>other around $300. It looks like the only difference is the more
>>expensive
>>one uses ED glass. Is the difference worth it?
>
> Many people seem to say the ED is worth it in comments here, but
> most reviews I see on the net say it isn't worth it, and optically
> they're both the same, nothing to write home about. Personally,
> I'm hoping Nikon will make an ED VR f4.5- EF-S in that range, but
> until that happens I'm seriously considering getting the G just
> to tide me over. How bad can it be, and in bright light the 300mm
> (for us old 35mm types, FOV of a 450mm) would be cool. For $100,
> it's worth it just to try it, I'd think. I did chase the 70-210
> which Ken Rockwell recommends, but only found one used at a dealer,
> and that was sold on. Seeing as all my old lenses have fungus
> inside, I'd be hesitant to buy an old one anyway.. even just a
> tiny bit of contamination will make an old lens worse than this
> new one. My advice: go with the $100 one, and hope for a cheap
> VR version in the future.
>
> --
> Ken Tough
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 1:26:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm hoping Nikon will make an ED VR f4.5- EF-S in that range, but

>The 70-200mm VR is stellar by itself quite good with a TC. I'm using the
>2x.

Yeah, but the reason I wanted f4.5+ is so that it would be lighter.
If I'm hiking or travelling, I don't really want to haul around a
kilogram(s) monster.

>>new one. My advice: go with the $100 one, and hope for a cheap
>>VR version in the future.
>
>I believe you'll be waiting a very long time VR != cheap!

Too bad; some of Canon's IS offerings aren't too expensive, at least
not all in the $1000+ range of f2.8 zooms.

--
Ken Tough
February 8, 2005 12:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
> If you are photographing stationary objects, with
> plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
> histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
> lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
> built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
> typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
> metering in the camera.


Does it not meter at all or is simply 'off'? There must be some kind of
reading coming through & it seems you could adjust the +/- to suit.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 7:40:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:21:10 -0800, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems paul
<paul@not.net> wrote:

>DoN. Nichols wrote:
> >
>> If you are photographing stationary objects, with
>> plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
>> histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
>> lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
>> built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
>> typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
>> metering in the camera.
>
>
>Does it not meter at all or is simply 'off'? There must be some kind of
>reading coming through & it seems you could adjust the +/- to suit.

Without the CPU, I believe the camera can't tell what the aperture is so it
can not meter at all.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:51:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <haci019p46e319e5h8h75hoq2t96mdhhg1@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:21:10 -0800, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems paul
><paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>> >
>>> If you are photographing stationary objects, with
>>> plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
>>> histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
>>> lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
>>> built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
>>> typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
>>> metering in the camera.
>>
>>
>>Does it not meter at all or is simply 'off'? There must be some kind of
>>reading coming through & it seems you could adjust the +/- to suit.
>
>Without the CPU, I believe the camera can't tell what the aperture is so it
>can not meter at all.

Correct. Some other cameras, such as the N90s film camera, have
a second moving tab to tell the camera what the current aperture setting
is (correction to this below), and those will work in aperture-preferred
mode, although not in shutter-preferred mode.

O.K. While I knew that was a proper description of the way such
lenses would be used on the N90s, It did not seem to make any sense,
without the camera knowing what the maximum aperture of the lens was.

So -- I just dug out the N90s and several lenses, and discovered
that what the ring and tab *actually* tell the camera is how many stops
below the maximum aperture the lens is currently set to. So -- it can
correct the measured light at full aperture to what will actually get
through at the moment of exposure.

And this is why the D70 will *not* work in any auto mode with
these older lenses (at least until someone transplants a CPU into the
lens). While it has a sensor to tell when the lens is set to the
minimum aperture (so the range of apertures is available through
controlling the motion of the stop-down lever inside the lens mount
ring), it has no way of knowing what the maximum aperture of the lens
is, or how many stops below that may be currently selected.

I hope that this helps,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
February 8, 2005 8:51:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So the camera doesn't know what aperture is being used but even in
manual mode, the meter picks up a signal & tries to tell you +/-. It
seems you could set aperture on the camera dial to match the lens & even
run in aperture priority mode but I don't know. The point is there is a
light meter in there no matter what reading what hits the sensor just
like the green dot for focus apparently works with non-af lenses.
February 10, 2005 7:54:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:cu46or$nr8$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <2K6dnW96jNNp7JjfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
> Sheldon <sheldon@REMOVEsopris.net> wrote:
> >"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:rjn901lnq7atvssmfjh5eeg2fk32nu17vk@4ax.com...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> Seems to have a mediocre rating at
> >> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html
> >
> >They certainly like my old 80-200. I guess it's a classic now. Could be
a
> >much better bet than going with the new AF lens. Just have to use it in
> >manual mode.
>
> Which may or may not be a problem, depending on the nature of
> your photography. If you are photographing stationary objects, with
> plenty of time, you can take test shots and adjust based on the
> histogram. However, if the subjects are active, and moving from one
> lighting condition to another all the time, you may really wish for the
> built-in metering. For *my* uses, with that long a lens, I will
> typically be taking the latter style of photograph, and would miss the
> metering in the camera.
>
> I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
> conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
> says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
> by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
> one.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
>
> --
> Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
> (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Is Pacific Rim Camera out of the conversion kit for your lens? They bought
out
the remaining Nikon conversion kits and it is much nicer than having a notch
ground
into your lens.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:24:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <ENQOd.6411$ID2.1583@fe02.lga>, George <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote:
>
>"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news:cu46or$nr8$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...

[ ... ]

>> I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
>> conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
>> says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
>> by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
>> one.

[ ... ]

>Is Pacific Rim Camera out of the conversion kit for your lens? They
>bought out the remaining Nikon conversion kits and it is much nicer than
>having a notch ground into your lens.

I don't know. I had not heard of them until this moment. Do
you have contact information for them?

Never mind -- a quick web search found them, and I do find it
quite interesting what is there. What I find for the lens in question
is:


======================================================================
70514 NIKON LENS AI CONVERSION KIT NO.76, FOR 80-200/4.5 NIKKOR WITH
SERIAL NUMBERS BETWEEN 101911-210000, NEW OLD STOCK REPAIR PART $25.00
======================================================================

Which based on the wording, and also on the photos on some other
nearby ones, is purely the replacement aperture ring to provide the tabs
to communicate with the N90s and similar. My lens (in the 168xxx serial
number range) already has *that* conversion.

What I was talking about was the installation of a CPU to tell
the D70 what the maximum aperture is, so it can do its metering magic.
The "AI conversion" would also be necessary if I did not have that.

However, I can see that I should check through for certain other
lenses which I may wish to so modify.

Nope -- my favorite lens is not among those listed, so I guess
that it is time to do some precision machining -- to convert that for
use on the N90s, if not the D70. At least, I now know what to do,
thanks to this discussion prompting me to study just how the mechanical
coupling mechanism works, and I have the machine tools needed to do that
job.

Now, if I only had the means to add a CPU to the 80-200mm zoom,
I would be really happy.

Thanks,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
February 12, 2005 1:24:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sorry, my mistake...I thought you were looking at the AI conversion (didn't
know anyone
hadn't done that) and not chipping the lens. If you do have the lens
chipped, please report
back on your experience...I was considering having it done to a fisheye
(8mm) but have been
leery after seeing one posting on the newsgroups that reportedly had a bad
experience.

George


"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:cuhc24$fqg$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <ENQOd.6411$ID2.1583@fe02.lga>, George <nowhere@newsonly.com>
wrote:
> >
> >"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> >news:cu46or$nr8$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> I have one of the 80-200mm lenses too -- and wish that the
> >> conversion could be performed on it. (The fellow who does that work
> >> says yes in his web page (last I checked), but no when I talked to him
> >> by phone. He did convert my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite happy with that
> >> one.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >Is Pacific Rim Camera out of the conversion kit for your lens? They
> >bought out the remaining Nikon conversion kits and it is much nicer than
> >having a notch ground into your lens.
>
> I don't know. I had not heard of them until this moment. Do
> you have contact information for them?
>
> Never mind -- a quick web search found them, and I do find it
> quite interesting what is there. What I find for the lens in question
> is:
>
>
> ======================================================================
> 70514 NIKON LENS AI CONVERSION KIT NO.76, FOR 80-200/4.5 NIKKOR WITH
> SERIAL NUMBERS BETWEEN 101911-210000, NEW OLD STOCK REPAIR PART $25.00
> ======================================================================
>
> Which based on the wording, and also on the photos on some other
> nearby ones, is purely the replacement aperture ring to provide the tabs
> to communicate with the N90s and similar. My lens (in the 168xxx serial
> number range) already has *that* conversion.
>
> What I was talking about was the installation of a CPU to tell
> the D70 what the maximum aperture is, so it can do its metering magic.
> The "AI conversion" would also be necessary if I did not have that.
>
> However, I can see that I should check through for certain other
> lenses which I may wish to so modify.
>
> Nope -- my favorite lens is not among those listed, so I guess
> that it is time to do some precision machining -- to convert that for
> use on the N90s, if not the D70. At least, I now know what to do,
> thanks to this discussion prompting me to study just how the mechanical
> coupling mechanism works, and I have the machine tools needed to do that
> job.
>
> Now, if I only had the means to add a CPU to the 80-200mm zoom,
> I would be really happy.
>
> Thanks,
> DoN.
> --
> Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
> (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:19:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <vPePd.8990$1G5.6703@fe02.lga>, George <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote:

> Sorry, my mistake...I thought you were looking at the AI conversion
> (didn't know anyone hadn't done that) and not chipping the lens. If you
> do have the lens chipped, please report back on your experience...I was
> considering having it done to a fisheye (8mm) but have been leery after
> seeing one posting on the newsgroups that reportedly had a bad
> experience.

The fellow who does the chipping has removed the 80-200mm from
the list of ones which he will work on. Presumably he found that was
more difficult than he had otherwise expected.

He *has* done my 180mm f2.8, and I am quite pleased with the
results. (Other than the fact that it lies to the camera, claiming that
it is a 300mm instead of a 180mm, bu that doesn't hurt anything, as I
don't *have* a 300mm to confuse it with. (And it actually has coverage
close to a 300mm on a full-frame 35mm camera. :-)

And I have a 20mm which I plan to send to him for chipping --
some of these days. (He also does not chip the 16mm fisheye, which is
my only other with the AI ring other than the 28-105mm which is my
everyday lens.)

I am considering setting up the necessary fixturing to modify the
aperture ring on an older 50mm f1.4. That one is not covered by the NOS
spares which I just looked at, so if it is to be converted to AI, I will
have to do it myself from scratch. (I at least have the skills and
the machine tools to do this at need.)

Then comes the question of whether that one can be chipped.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
!