Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nilsen on July 29, 2006, 10:30:19 AM
-
Are Nikkor lenses any good? Nikon/nikkor sound similar. Same company?
Im looking at a 70-300 lens and the price is not that bad.
-edit- this is the one: Nikkor AFD 70-300/4,0-5,6 ED
There is a cheaper one called: Nikkor AFG 70-300/4,0-5,6. Its almost half the price but does not have the "ED" whatever that is.
-
Nevermind.. found out that "ED" is a better glass.
-
On the 200-400mm stuff, I cannot recommend some kind of image stabilization enough. Pay the money and lose the tripod.
-
Is that some sort of gadget that you bolt on to the lenses/camera or does some lenses come with stabilizers buildt in?
I have only used the lens that came with the camera and another one that is not meant for digital cameras. The one I borrowed gave sharper images than the standard, but the colors didnt look right.
-
ED glass is a lot softer & more easily scratched, but it does absorb some of the ill effects of mediocre grinding.
Zeiss lenes, which don't use ED, fluorite or it's relatives, score higher for sharpness.
Image stabilization is teh kewl.
I used to have a pair of stabilized Canon binoculars. I could hold them in my left hand & look through them while eating a sandwich & it was better than regular binoculars, but bring extra batteries or eat your sandwiches early
-
What's your budget? Are you looking for nice glass that will last you a lifetime or are you looking for something to make snapshots with?
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
What's your budget? Are you looking for nice glass that will last you a lifetime or are you looking for something to make snapshots with?
My budget is limited to around 300 USD.
I would like one that lets me get closer to the neigbour when changes clothes in her bedroom without me beeing caught standing too close.
hehe.. Id just like one that has decent quality cause i cant expect anything really pro at that budget, but it has to be better than the standard in terms of quality and "range".
-
Stabilization is built into some lenses. With the Nikon stuff it's usually called "VR" (Vibration reduction) I believe. With the Canon stuff it's called "IS" (Image Stabilization). It adds about $500 to the cost of the lens, but is money well spent. With a 300mm lens, you'll need a tripod and a remote shutter release in order to keep the lens from moving. The IS allows you to hand hold the camera and still get good pics.
-
I see Mini.
That is way out of my budget. I promised the missus when I got the cam that i didnt need anymore stuff on it. She is a bright woman and knew that when I buy a toy I ususally end up getting addons and gadgets for it. :D
She can smell if the lens is expensive. Im not keen on getting a snicker and a "I told you so"
Would be nice to find a lens thats better than the standard but looks very much like the original and wont set me back too much. ;)
-
I don't know many people that have bought a cheap 300mm lens and not regretted it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't know many people that have bought a cheap 300mm lens and not regretted it.
ok..
somthing with abit more zoom then, but higher quality than the standard?
-
It's not really the zoom, it's the focal length. When you have a 300mm lens, a small movement at the camera body translates to alot of movement 12" away from it. You will fight keeping the lens as still as possible to keep movement from blurring pictures. It's possible to get some good photos when you have alot of light, but only possible. You'll not get any real good use out of that lens unless you are prepared to do everything from a heavy duty tripod and use a remote trigger.
-
These are probably the top picks with the parameters you specified;
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 $219.00 http://tinyurl.com/rhf3f
Tokina Zoom Telephoto 60-300mm f/4-5.6 $179.95 http://tinyurl.com/memzy
Tokina Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X $299.95 http://tinyurl.com/l9cpa
Nikon/Nikkor lenses are usually better than others, but they dropped the ball on their 70-300. No point in paying for the name for that lens when you can get as good for less.
Tokina has been surprising people a lot the past few years. Their 12-24 is actually better than Nikon's 12-24 and 1/3 the price. I have their 12-24 and love it.
As mini mentioned, with the longer lenses you'll probably want to look into a decent tripod, else you'll have to shoot at fairly fast shutter speeds to keep from blurring the image.
It's probably been mentioned in another thread, but definitely check out the Fred Miranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com) forum. There is a lot of good info there and the people are generally helpful.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It's not really the zoom, it's the focal length. When you have a 300mm lens, a small movement at the camera body translates to alot of movement 12" away from it. You will fight keeping the lens as still as possible to keep movement from blurring pictures. It's possible to get some good photos when you have alot of light, but only possible. You'll not get any real good use out of that lens unless you are prepared to do everything from a heavy duty tripod and use a remote trigger.
Yeah i just call it zoom..
As i have understood it 70-300 means 300/70= about 4,3x zoom.
Are there any lenses that are better than the standard for about 300USD if i can settle for the same "zoom"?
And another question.. are there any decent filters (again fairly cheap) out there that helps when i take pics close to the water on a sunny day without getting all the reflections from the surface? The one I have now is an old one that my father used on his old SLR cam and doesnt really fit and is abit worn.
-
thx jigsaw.. those brands looks familiar so ill look around for them online.
-
May I suggest a fixed focal length lens.. I'd say in the 300 mm range they are both a lot cheaper than the zooms and also usually of higher quality. I have 2 fixed focal lenght lenses and each one of them is of a different magnitude of quality than the comparable zoom lenses. My lenses are wide-endish, but I believe the effect is even more pronounced on longer lenses. Mine are 14mm/2.8, 30mm/1.4.
I have a $200 Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II lens and all I can say about it is that don't buy this one. For a long zoom lens, I say minimum investment for a good one is $2000. For that, you can get a good 70-200 and maybe a tele-converter.
-
Nilson.. the 70-300 means it's a telephoto lens capable of 70mm to 300mm focal lengths (varying magnifications). Mag is a bit tougher to explain with 35mm cameras, so your best bet is to go into a camera shop and see what mag the lenses get you.
-
Ill go down to a photoshop on monday, I just wanted to get some input here first so i dont get tricked into spending too much if something just as good can cost less elsewere. The guy running "my" potoshop is a real pro, but you know how they can be when it comes to shelling out for the good stuff.
thanks anyway :)
-
Honestly, I think the cheap 70-300mm lenses are downright crap. I have the cheapo Nikkor 70-300, non-ED, and I kind of hate it.. although, what more can I ask for the few bucks it costs. I have it if I really need to shoot frames of something further away. The quality however is rather bad.
The cheap 70-300's of all brands are almost the same. The ED doesn't improve the quality much.
If you don't really need the millimeters, then save the money for a better lens. If you're not going to spend four times more money on a lens in a near future, then you don't really have any other options left than the cheapo lenses.
Theres almost no thing that isn't wrong with these cheapo 70-300's. Chromation, distortion, inaccurate and slow auto focus... (especially the bad AF becomes annoying!)
If you can save some more money and don't need the millimeters in the near future, then you could save up for a lens like Sigma 100-300mm F4 or 80-400mm F4-5.6 with stabilizer, which of the both are in range of 1000-1200 bucks. Nikon too has a 80-400mm lens, with stabilizer, but it costs 1600-1700 bucks (with much better quality though).
I'm going to try save up money for Nikon's 70-200mm F2.8 VR lens, it costs 2000 euros.. yipee.. albeit I must first use 2000 euros for an another thing. :(