Older Nikon 70-210 D f4-5.6 vs Nikon 70-300 ED

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sgtdisturbed, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    I am looking at the older 70-210 f4-5.6 D version, which apparently
    has a pretty fast focus, has a push-pull zoom, and is supposed to have
    crisp images across the focal/zoom range. I have heard that the Nikon
    70-300 ED, non VR "cheapy" version, is really soft at 300mm and that
    it's ED elements are like in the middle of the lens where they do
    little or no good there. I am also looking at a Sigma 70-300 DG APO
    Macro, the one with the red ring at the end of the barrel. I have seen
    some decent photos taken with it, but I am really apprehensive about
    third-party lens companies. Apparently the zoom on the Sigma 70-300
    APO Macro is driven by a little rubber belt. That worries me. I Just
    don't know if I can trust Sigma lenses, especially after using their
    piece of sh*t 18-50mm & 55-200mm lens kit. Worst lenses I have ever
    seen/felt/used, so as you can imagine, I am a bit apprehensive about
    saving a few bucks just to get some piece of junk, but if the image
    quality makes up for it's poor build quality, I might go for it, but I
    really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210
    D. Your input is appreciated.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Feb 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sgtdisturbed

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "sgtdisturbed" <> writes:
    > really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    > Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210 D.


    To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    sturdy lens with a tripod socket.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    On Feb 6, 9:16 am, Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > "sgtdisturbed" <> writes:
    > > really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    > > Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210 D.

    >
    > To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    > sturdy lens with a tripod socket.


    Ya but it's non-D. I was asking which of the 3 that I have listed
    would you go for, prefferably by experience.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Feb 6, 2007
    #3
  4. sgtdisturbed

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "sgtdisturbed" <> writes:
    > > To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    > > sturdy lens with a tripod socket.

    >
    > Ya but it's non-D. I was asking which of the 3 that I have listed
    > would you go for, prefferably by experience.


    I'd still consider it, D very rarely makes any difference. But it's a
    bigger lens.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 6, 2007
    #4
  5. sgtdisturbed

    Jim Guest

    "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 6, 9:16 am, Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >> "sgtdisturbed" <> writes:
    >> > really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    >> > Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210
    >> > D.

    >>
    >> To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    >> sturdy lens with a tripod socket.

    >
    > Ya but it's non-D. I was asking which of the 3 that I have listed
    > would you go for, prefferably by experience.
    >

    Being non-D or D in this focal length is unimportant.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Feb 6, 2007
    #5
  6. sgtdisturbed

    ASAAR Guest

    On 06 Feb 2007 09:16:28 -0800, Paul Rubin
    <http://> wrote:

    >> really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    >> Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210 D.

    >
    > To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    > sturdy lens with a tripod socket.


    Do you know how that 75-300 non-D rates for image quality? Also,
    do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?
     
    ASAAR, Feb 6, 2007
    #6
  7. sgtdisturbed

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Jim" <> writes:
    > > Ya but it's non-D. I was asking which of the 3 that I have listed
    > > would you go for, prefferably by experience.
    > >

    > Being non-D or D in this focal length is unimportant.


    You know if it were me I would not buy any of these lenses these days,
    I'd go for one of the 80-200/2.8's which are a lot better built plus 2
    stops faster, and not THAT much more expensive. Alternatively, maybe
    a 180/2.8. The 80-200/2.8's are are sure larger though.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 6, 2007
    #7
  8. sgtdisturbed

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:12:50 -0500, in rec.photo.digital ASAAR
    <> wrote:

    >On 06 Feb 2007 09:16:28 -0800, Paul Rubin
    ><http://> wrote:
    >
    >>> really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    >>> Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210 D.

    >>
    >> To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    >> sturdy lens with a tripod socket.

    >
    > Do you know how that 75-300 non-D rates for image quality? Also,
    >do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    >take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?


    I can't speak directly to this, but can provide some info that might
    be helpful. I shoot using the combo of the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
    VR Zoom-Nikkor with a 2x TC-20EII resulting in a max aperture of
    f/5.6. I have used this on a D70 and D200. This lens by itself is a
    fast stellar performer on either body. With the TC it get's quite
    sluggish in comparison. Maybe not quite so much on the D200, but not
    what you could call a marked improvement. It still is noticeably
    sluggish even in decent light.
    -
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf, Feb 6, 2007
    #8
  9. sgtdisturbed

    Paul Rubin Guest

    ASAAR <> writes:
    > Do you know how that 75-300 non-D rates for image quality? Also,
    > do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    > take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?


    I've heard differing things about it compared with other lenses. My
    impression is it's a bit better (but larger) than the 70-300's but not
    in the league of the 80-200/2.8's. Its AF is slow regardless.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 6, 2007
    #9
  10. sgtdisturbed

    frederick Guest

    sgtdisturbed wrote:
    > I am looking at the older 70-210 f4-5.6 D version, which apparently
    > has a pretty fast focus, has a push-pull zoom, and is supposed to have
    > crisp images across the focal/zoom range. I have heard that the Nikon
    > 70-300 ED, non VR "cheapy" version, is really soft at 300mm and that
    > it's ED elements are like in the middle of the lens where they do
    > little or no good there. I am also looking at a Sigma 70-300 DG APO
    > Macro, the one with the red ring at the end of the barrel. I have seen
    > some decent photos taken with it, but I am really apprehensive about
    > third-party lens companies. Apparently the zoom on the Sigma 70-300
    > APO Macro is driven by a little rubber belt. That worries me. I Just
    > don't know if I can trust Sigma lenses, especially after using their
    > piece of sh*t 18-50mm & 55-200mm lens kit. Worst lenses I have ever
    > seen/felt/used, so as you can imagine, I am a bit apprehensive about
    > saving a few bucks just to get some piece of junk, but if the image
    > quality makes up for it's poor build quality, I might go for it, but I
    > really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    > Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210
    > D. Your input is appreciated.
    >


    I have a 70-210 4-5.6 D. I've also owned the non D version of the lens
    at the same time. As far as optical performance goes, the lens is very
    usable at maximum aperture at 210mm - sharp across the frame, low CA
    and distortion. This is a bonus as most older and many new consumer
    zooms (and even a 200mm AI f 4 prime I owned) need to be stopped down to
    f8 - or in any case were poor at maximum focal length.
    Downsides of the lens are that it is noisy focusing, rotating front
    element (not sure that a polariser on an f5.6 lens is desirable anyway),
    and the lens is not well sealed - many examples I've seen have had lots
    of dirt and fungus. They are very easy to disassemble to clean behind
    front element where the dust ends up, but if there's lots there, then
    you may not be able to easily see fungus in elements deeper in the lens.
    If you don't need the fast focus, the non-D or older fixed f4 version
    can be a bargain at ~ US100 second hand.
     
    frederick, Feb 6, 2007
    #10
  11. sgtdisturbed

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:36:02 -0500, Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to
    E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <>> wrote:

    >> Do you know how that 75-300 non-D rates for image quality? Also,
    >>do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    >>take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?

    >
    > I can't speak directly to this, but can provide some info that might
    > be helpful. I shoot using the combo of the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
    > VR Zoom-Nikkor with a 2x TC-20EII resulting in a max aperture of
    > f/5.6. I have used this on a D70 and D200. This lens by itself is a
    > fast stellar performer on either body. With the TC it get's quite
    > sluggish in comparison. Maybe not quite so much on the D200, but not
    > what you could call a marked improvement. It still is noticeably
    > sluggish even in decent light.


    Thanks. That keeps my decision simpler by not giving me a good
    reason to reconsider the D200. I suppose there's a slim chance that
    a super D300 might change things, but I'll probably have purchased a
    DSLR body before a D300 is announced, let alone available in stores.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 6, 2007
    #11
  12. sgtdisturbed

    ASAAR Guest

    On 06 Feb 2007 11:41:52 -0800, Paul Rubin
    <http://> wrote:

    >> Do you know how that 75-300 non-D rates for image quality? Also,
    >> do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    >> take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?

    >
    > I've heard differing things about it compared with other lenses. My
    > impression is it's a bit better (but larger) than the 70-300's but not
    > in the league of the 80-200/2.8's. Its AF is slow regardless.


    That's a relief. I never really tested it when I used it and
    didn't want to find out that it was considered to be one of Nikon's
    dogs, optically. As it has been in storage for about a dozen years
    and all I've used during that time are P&S digicams, at its sluggish
    slowest I imagine that it'll be quicker and focus more accurately
    than what I'm used to.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 6, 2007
    #12
  13. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    Why is it that with every new thread comes someone who hasn't read the
    main post? I am not asking about a 500 dollar lens, nor can I afford
    one, that is why I asked about the 3 lenses that I have listed in the
    first post. If your answer is going to be "those are all crap, buy
    this one" and rattle off the name of some super-Pro 10,000 dollar
    lens, then I ask you to not post here. I only asked about which of
    those lenses, based on experience, would you recommend.


    On Feb 6, 11:36 am, Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
    <>> wrote:
    > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:12:50 -0500, in rec.photo.digital ASAAR
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On 06 Feb 2007 09:16:28 -0800, Paul Rubin
    > ><http://> wrote:

    >
    > >>> really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality: the
    > >>> Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier 70-210 D.

    >
    > >> To complicate things there's also an older 75-300 non-D which is a very
    > >> sturdy lens with a tripod socket.

    >
    > > Do you know how that 75-300 non-D rates for image quality? Also,
    > >do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    > >take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?

    >
    > I can't speak directly to this, but can provide some info that might
    > be helpful. I shoot using the combo of the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
    > VR Zoom-Nikkor with a 2x TC-20EII resulting in a max aperture of
    > f/5.6. I have used this on a D70 and D200. This lens by itself is a
    > fast stellar performer on either body. With the TC it get's quite
    > sluggish in comparison. Maybe not quite so much on the D200, but not
    > what you could call a marked improvement. It still is noticeably
    > sluggish even in decent light.
    > -
    > Ed Ruf ()http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    sgtdisturbed, Feb 8, 2007
    #13
  14. sgtdisturbed

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "sgtdisturbed" <> writes:
    > Why is it that with every new thread comes someone who hasn't read the
    > main post? I am not asking about a 500 dollar lens, nor can I afford
    > one, that is why I asked about the 3 lenses that I have listed in the
    > first post. If your answer is going to be "those are all crap, buy
    > this one" and rattle off the name of some super-Pro 10,000 dollar
    > lens, then I ask you to not post here. I only asked about which of
    > those lenses, based on experience, would you recommend.


    You specifically asked about the 70-300/4-5.6's slow speed could get
    the camera AF confused, and someone kindly answered based on an
    70-200/2.8 with a 2x TC, which comes out to the same f/5.6. You're
    whining that the 70-200/2.8+TC combo is much more expensive than the
    70-300 but what's relevant is that it's the same f-stop and is
    therefore responsive to your question. If you don't want answers,
    don't ask questions.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 8, 2007
    #14
  15. sgtdisturbed

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On 8 Feb 2007 08:29:57 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "sgtdisturbed"
    <> wrote:

    >Why is it that with every new thread comes someone who hasn't read the
    >main post? I am not asking about a 500 dollar lens, nor can I afford
    >one, that is why I asked about the 3 lenses that I have listed in the
    >first post. If your answer is going to be "those are all crap, buy
    >this one" and rattle off the name of some super-Pro 10,000 dollar
    >lens, then I ask you to not post here. I only asked about which of
    >those lenses, based on experience, would you recommend.


    Why don't you learn how to use a real news reader that properly
    displays threads and replies? If you did, you would see I replied to
    ASAAR's question:
    > > Also,
    > >do you know whether its AF performance in moderate brightness would
    > >take a significant hit using a D50 or D80 vs. a D200?


    I have direct experience using a "somewhat challenged" lens/tc combo
    on two bodies that appears to be the answer he was looking for. Sub
    -threads can form within given threads. If you used a real newsreader
    you would see and hopefully understand this. I have specifically not
    replied to your OP after reading it, because I can't offer any
    firsthand advice in regard to the lens you asked about.

    So why not go get a copy of free agent and use RR's newsfeed instead
    of complaining about a normal thread development?

    -
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf, Feb 8, 2007
    #15
  16. sgtdisturbed

    Joan Guest

    I've read through this post and your other replies in this thread and
    I can't see any mention of what camera you have.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    :I am looking at the older 70-210 f4-5.6 D version, which apparently
    : has a pretty fast focus, has a push-pull zoom, and is supposed to
    have
    : crisp images across the focal/zoom range. I have heard that the
    Nikon
    : 70-300 ED, non VR "cheapy" version, is really soft at 300mm and that
    : it's ED elements are like in the middle of the lens where they do
    : little or no good there. I am also looking at a Sigma 70-300 DG APO
    : Macro, the one with the red ring at the end of the barrel. I have
    seen
    : some decent photos taken with it, but I am really apprehensive about
    : third-party lens companies. Apparently the zoom on the Sigma 70-300
    : APO Macro is driven by a little rubber belt. That worries me. I Just
    : don't know if I can trust Sigma lenses, especially after using their
    : piece of sh*t 18-50mm & 55-200mm lens kit. Worst lenses I have ever
    : seen/felt/used, so as you can imagine, I am a bit apprehensive about
    : saving a few bucks just to get some piece of junk, but if the image
    : quality makes up for it's poor build quality, I might go for it, but
    I
    : really need to know which of these 3 gives the best image quality:
    the
    : Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, Nikon 70-300 ED, or the older, sturdier
    70-210
    : D. Your input is appreciated.
    :
     
    Joan, Feb 9, 2007
    #16
  17. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    Exactly when the **** did I ask that question? Get your shit straight.
    Don'[t correct posts if you are a retarded monkey.

    On Feb 8, 8:50 am, Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > "sgtdisturbed" <> writes:
    > > Why is it that with every new thread comes someone who hasn't read the
    > > main post? I am not asking about a 500 dollar lens, nor can I afford
    > > one, that is why I asked about the 3 lenses that I have listed in the
    > > first post. If your answer is going to be "those are all crap, buy
    > > this one" and rattle off the name of some super-Pro 10,000 dollar
    > > lens, then I ask you to not post here. I only asked about which of
    > > those lenses, based on experience, would you recommend.

    >
    > You specifically asked about the 70-300/4-5.6's slow speed could get
    > the camera AF confused, and someone kindly answered based on an
    > 70-200/2.8 with a 2x TC, which comes out to the same f/5.6. You're
    > whining that the 70-200/2.8+TC combo is much more expensive than the
    > 70-300 but what's relevant is that it's the same f-stop and is
    > therefore responsive to your question. If you don't want answers,
    > don't ask questions.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Feb 11, 2007
    #17
  18. sgtdisturbed

    acl Guest

    On Feb 11, 9:15 pm, "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    > Exactly when the **** did I ask that question? Get your shit straight.
    > Don'[t correct posts if you are a retarded monkey.
    >


    I bet you're one of those people who start fights because they don't
    like someone's face either, eh? Let's see how many knowledgeable
    people waste their time answering your questions in the future.
     
    acl, Feb 11, 2007
    #18
  19. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    On Feb 11, 11:59 am, "acl" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 11, 9:15 pm, "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Exactly when the **** did I ask that question? Get your shit straight.
    > > Don'[t correct posts if you are a retarded monkey.

    >
    > I bet you're one of those people who start fights because they don't
    > like someone's face either, eh? Let's see how many knowledgeable
    > people waste their time answering your questions in the future.


    I just so happen to be one of those kinds of people who happen to
    remember if they asked a question or not. Read back a few posts and
    add it up for yourself before you try and form an opinion.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Feb 12, 2007
    #19
  20. sgtdisturbed <> wrote:
    > On Feb 11, 11:59 am, "acl" <> wrote:
    > > On Feb 11, 9:15 pm, "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Exactly when the **** did I ask that question? Get your shit straight.
    > > > Don'[t correct posts if you are a retarded monkey.

    > >
    > > I bet you're one of those people who start fights because they don't
    > > like someone's face either, eh? Let's see how many knowledgeable
    > > people waste their time answering your questions in the future.


    > I just so happen to be one of those kinds of people who happen to
    > remember if they asked a question or not. Read back a few posts and
    > add it up for yourself before you try and form an opinion.


    After reading this thread I'll recommend you search the nikon 70-210,
    and buy it, but only if it is cheap. That lens is definitely for you,
    you will not be satisfied by anything else.

    --

    Jyrki Valkama

     
    Jyrki Valkama, Feb 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. WhyNot

    Help! 70-210 and 72-210

    WhyNot, May 15, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    456
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    May 23, 2004
  2. Consultant
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    Consultant
    Aug 23, 2005
  3. Clive Long,UK

    Olympus Stylus 300/ 400 (mju 300 / 400) carry case

    Clive Long,UK, Sep 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    425
    Patrick Moore
    Oct 11, 2003
  4. PeterH

    Canon 90-300 or Sigma 70-300 ?

    PeterH, Jan 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    5,864
    Steven M. Scharf
    Feb 11, 2004
  5. Donald McTrevor

    Older CPU benchmarks, Cyrix MII 300 and AMD K6-2

    Donald McTrevor, Jul 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,016
    Donald McTrevor
    Aug 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page