Why are some 70-300mm telephoto lenses so much cheaper than others?
Posted by admin | Under Camera D50 Digital Nikon SLR Monday Dec 14, 2009I don’t know much about photography but am interested in getting a good Telephoto lense for my Nikon D50 digital SLR camera. Any recomendations?
The two primary differences between the 70-300 series lies in the quality of the glass used in the lens (which can affect things like the sharpness and color quality of the image) and the aperture/other mechanical features, such as the autofocus motor.
The cheapest 70-300 (the 4-5.6G, $135, Link 1) has no real enhancements, and is pretty much the barebones 70-300 lens. Don’t expect focus to be very fast on this lens.
The next level up (the 4-5.6D ED, $330, Link 2) has upgraded glass over the previous model, hence the "ED" designation. The ED (which I think stands for Enhanced Dispersion) helps to prevent chromatic aberrations in your images, which usually shows up as purple or red fringing around subject lines, especially when shooting into direct light.
The premium 70-300 ($480, Link 3) has several significant upgrades over the previous models. First, it has Nikon’s SWM (Silent Wave Motor), which is their fastest and quietest AF motor, so it will focus quicker/better than the other two lenses. It also has internal focusing, so the front element of the lens will not rotate. This is helpful if you are using filters like a circular polarizer which need to stay stationary to give you optimal effects. This lens also is equipped with VR (Vibration Reduction), which helps you to get better image results in low light. This lens also features the ED glass present in the earlier model.
If you can afford it, I’d really suggest getting the AF-S lens with VR. Yes, it does seem expensive, but it’s really the best (in my opinion) bang-for-the-buck telephoto zoom in the Nikon lineup. You get the same features found in premiere lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8- the SWM motor, VR- just without the extra aperture. This will last you a while until you can step up to those more expensive lenses, and I think it would be a great lens for you with that range.
the 70-300 f4-5.6 G/D-ED is not a good lens – do a research and you’ll see that the lens is generally dark, have some vignetting problems and have low build quality.
But at least with this lenses you won’t need to worry about the vignetting thing because a D50 is a DX camera with a crop factor of 1.5x.
You get what you pay for the price. Good tele lenses are expensive.
If you really need a 300mm lenses (450mm equivalent with a D50) with reasonable price and quality, I’d say a 70-300 f4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S with VR. It’s still not the best lens in the world, but at least you won’t be disappointed with the result of your photo.
References :
The quality of glass, construction and lens coatings go a long way in the differences in price. Back in HS when I couldn’t afford the name brands, I bought 3rd party like Vivitar and Sigma. When I got a real job, I bought a Nikon SLR and set of lenses and the feel and quality are no comparison. You still pay more for the name but I will never go back. If you are still interested in the 3rd party brands, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron are decent. They also tend to be more compact than their Nikon and Canon counterparts (less components, more plastic).
References :
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4430/best-buys-lenses.html
The two primary differences between the 70-300 series lies in the quality of the glass used in the lens (which can affect things like the sharpness and color quality of the image) and the aperture/other mechanical features, such as the autofocus motor.
The cheapest 70-300 (the 4-5.6G, $135, Link 1) has no real enhancements, and is pretty much the barebones 70-300 lens. Don’t expect focus to be very fast on this lens.
The next level up (the 4-5.6D ED, $330, Link 2) has upgraded glass over the previous model, hence the "ED" designation. The ED (which I think stands for Enhanced Dispersion) helps to prevent chromatic aberrations in your images, which usually shows up as purple or red fringing around subject lines, especially when shooting into direct light.
The premium 70-300 ($480, Link 3) has several significant upgrades over the previous models. First, it has Nikon’s SWM (Silent Wave Motor), which is their fastest and quietest AF motor, so it will focus quicker/better than the other two lenses. It also has internal focusing, so the front element of the lens will not rotate. This is helpful if you are using filters like a circular polarizer which need to stay stationary to give you optimal effects. This lens also is equipped with VR (Vibration Reduction), which helps you to get better image results in low light. This lens also features the ED glass present in the earlier model.
If you can afford it, I’d really suggest getting the AF-S lens with VR. Yes, it does seem expensive, but it’s really the best (in my opinion) bang-for-the-buck telephoto zoom in the Nikon lineup. You get the same features found in premiere lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8- the SWM motor, VR- just without the extra aperture. This will last you a while until you can step up to those more expensive lenses, and I think it would be a great lens for you with that range.
References :
1) 70-300G: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207359-USA/Nikon_1928_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html
2) 70-300D ED: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149607-USA/Nikon_1924_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html
3) 70-300 VR: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html
Glass/Optics for one, the quality and f~stop just how fast the lens is. I have 3 Tamron lens and one Canon lens and they are the best they make…FAST! and that is what I require for my Photography.
References :
Photographer.
I have/had a Nikon 70-300mm G lens and used it until it broke. Someone kicked it, but that’s not something you should expect in ordinary use! However, it was a very light, virtually all-plastic body and felt like the economy lens that it was. Results were ok, but I was on a budget.
After my ‘accident’ (problem with shooting from endzone), I looked for a 70-300mm ED but stumbled upon a gently used older Nikon 75-300mm. It’s a heavy, all-metal body with push/pull zoom. The lens is amazingly sharp and can be found on Craigslist and on Ebay regularly.
Here’s some shots I took recently during the WNBA Playoffs with it. (Please excuse that the pictures had to be downsized for uploading to the website)
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/WNBA/2007/playoffs/Sacramento-Monarchs-86-vs-San-Antoino-SiverStars-65-8-2007/DSC_1059_GHYoung.html
And here’s a nice review.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/75300.htm
If my wallet could handle it, I’d look at the new 70-300mm VR as I love the VR (vibration reduction) feature. I have it on my 18-200mm VR and it’s allowed me to take photos handheld at 1/4 of a second!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
Hope this helps.
References :
Amateur & professional photographer for 45+ years.
With lenses you get what you pay for.
If you want pro-quality results, save up for an 80-200 f2.8 and add a high-end teleconverter.
By the way, there’s no such thing as a "focal length multiplier" which turns a 300mm lens into a 450.
References :