Nikon D3100 these lens work with it?

[Downton Mini]

Hi guys

I've got a Nikon D3100 and I'm looking at the following lens

Nikon AF Nikkor 28-100 1:3 5-5.6 G

and

Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300 1:4 5.6G

My question is will they work ok with my camera?

Thanks

ETA Sorry just noticed the title doesn't make sense but can not change it

Edited by Downton Mini on Friday 18th January 18:48

[LocoBlade]

They'll work as in fit the camera and you can take a photo, but unless they're AF-S (rather than AF) they won't autofocus as there's no inbuilt auto focus motor in the lens

[Downton Mini]

LocoBlade said:

They'll work as in fit the camera and you can take a photo, but unless they're AF-S (rather than AF) they won't autofocus as there's no inbuilt auto focus motor in the lens

Thanks for that I may wait for a AF-S one to come up then as I am still very much a novice in DSLR photography

[Simpo Two]

As said 'AF-S' is the thing to look for; there are plenty about.

[Downton Mini]

Thanks for your replies another quick question which of the following is more versatile a 55-300 or a 70-300?

[LocoBlade]

Simpo Two said:

As said 'AF-S' is the thing to look for; there are plenty about.

Yup, although often significantly more expensive than the AF model. The 70-300 above is a good example as you can pick up that old AF for under £100 but the AF-S is over £300. I don't know how they compare in quality (I would hope the newer one is a lot better!) but I kinda wish I'd spent out on a D7000 rather than the D5100 so at least I had the option on such lenses.

[LocoBlade]

Downton Mini said:

Thanks for your replies another quick question which of the following is more versatile a 55-300 or a 70-300?

I'm borrowing a 55-300mm at the moment with the thought of buying one, I'm liking it so far and as the 70-300 is a little above budget, I've not really considered it. From what I understand the 55-300 is physically smaller/lighter as well as £100 cheaper than the 70-300mm, and going as short as 55mm will make it slightly more usable when subjects are a bit closer, although I imagine with this type of lens I'd mostly use it at longer range so wouldn't notice whether it was 55mm or 70mm.

I think the 70-300 has faster focussing and is meant to be a bit sharper at longer range, but from what I've read it's not night and day better image quality so I think the compactness of the 55-300 will suit me better, as well as the price.

[james_tigerwoods]

I disagree. I've use the 70-300 a lot and I've got both the 55-200 and 55-300 (I've not got around to selling the 55-200). The 70-300 is faster (at focusing), sharper and clearer than the 55-300, the 55-300 is softer at 300mm too - I'm seriously thinking about switching back to the 55-200 and selling the 55-300.

[Simpo Two]

LocoBlade said:

Yup, although often significantly more expensive than the AF model. The 70-300 above is a good example as you can pick up that old AF for under £100 but the AF-S is over £300.

And more - but as you imtimate they are very different quality. The AF-S version is more expensive because it has VR and much better glass. It's the top telephoto before you get into the 'pro' league - as James has found. By contrast the G model was always a budget lens.

As ever with lenses, the more you spend, the better it will be... you just have to decide how fussy you are.

[LocoBlade]

james_tigerwoods said:

I disagree. I've use the 70-300 a lot and I've got both the 55-200 and 55-300 (I've not got around to selling the 55-200). The 70-300 is faster (at focusing), sharper and clearer than the 55-300, the 55-300 is softer at 300mm too - I'm seriously thinking about switching back to the 55-200 and selling the 55-300.

Like I say, only what I've read but I didn't go into it too much as my man maths isn't sufficiently competent to get the 70-300 past the finance manager. For an additional £100 for a lens with less range and no faster, you'd hope it would give you better IQ really, otherwise what's the point buying it (other than for faster AF I guess).

Edited by LocoBlade on Friday 18th January 21:49

[LocoBlade]

Simpo Two said:

And more

Yup, for UK stock anyway. I was looking at Amazon marketplace stockists which I believe are grey imports at around £330 compared to £200 from similar sources for the 55-300

[james_tigerwoods]

The 55-300 is VR and it's nice, it's good, but I've used the 70-300 which is better. In the same way that the 18-55 is good, but a combination of the 18-70 and 35mm 1.8 is better (and I'm never going back and you can't make me...)

If you're interested in my 55-300, let me know by the way.

[Downton Mini]

Thanks for your help guys I nearly brought a Tamron 70-300 that Jessops had on offer sadly I didn't get chance. I think it was this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF-70-300mm-F4-5-6-...

What are the differences between Nikon, Tamron and Sigma lens in terms of quality
etc

Sorry for all the questions

[Gad-Westy]

Downton Mini said:

What are the differences between Nikon, Tamron and Sigma lens in terms of quality
etc

As above really, it generally is still a case that the more you spend, the better you get, regardless of who makes it. All three offer a range of lenses varying from cheap and cheerful to expensive and superb. I think it's fair to say that if you have the cash, Nikon will generally be able to offer something of the highest quality for any given application but as with all things in life, you do reach a point where laws of diminishing returns start to apply, so a £600 Nikon lens is not necessarily going to be twice as good as a £300 Tamron one but it is likely to be better, whether that be in terms of build quality , auto focus, image quality or whatever else.

Being more specific about it and dealing with the telephoto zooms you're looking at. My opinion is that Sigma are kings of the reasonably priced super long telephotos, e.g 150-500 etc and they've made some great fast telephoto zooms as well (I have a 70-200 2.8 OS at the moment and it's pretty impressive) but I don't think they've ever made an outstanding 55-200 or 70-300 lens. That's not to say they're bad, I just think there are generally better options for the money. Tamron's 'cheap' 70-300 like the one you linked to is okay but at this price, you can't expect miracles. AF is quite slow, it suffers badly from chromatic aberration (this lens taught me what that is!) and it's far from sharp wide open but I do think it represents value for money. That said, for that sort of budget I think the Nikon 55-200 VR would be a better choice. Sure it's not as long but other than that I think it's better in every way and similar sort of cash.

The Nikon 55-300 VR is a nice enough lens but I can't help thinking that the 70-300 VR represents far better value. You only have to hold the two next to each other to know where your money is going. IQ wise, the 70-300 is better but not enormously. Where is really justifies it's price tag is the speed of AF and the build quality and it's a full frame lens too which may be irrelevant to you but goes some way to explaining the cost. Used 70-300's can be bought for less than £300 from a dealer with warranty.

One last interesting option is the newest Tamron 70-300 VC. It's a whole chunk cheaper than the Nikon equivalent but many reviews put it ahead or at worst equal to the Nikon. Could be something of bargain but I've never actually tried one.

[K12beano]

Keep asking!!!

Quality differences. Hmm. Well I'm not sure if it is a myth, but it used to be said that the glass was mostly made by the factories of Canon and Nikon and then the third party manufacturers got the seconds. I'm not sure that's actually true, but there are some considerations.

Speaking generally here:

Optical quality. Well Nikon has an unbeatable pedigree in lens design. Many innovations over many years. Use of ED glass elements, nano coatings and suchlike. It's probably true that manufacturing tolerances are that bit tighter than the competition.

That sort of thing you have to pay for.

The third party manufacturers might not actually produce products that are actually better. But many, many times they come pretty close.

Build quality. More often than not you'll notice build quality and design, other than optically, is where the third party manage to save some costs.

Compatability. There have historically been some issues, although relatively rare, where third party lenses don't quite work in some way, or need to be re-calibrated.

Price. But then, so often, there's considerable savings to be had. Once you understand why, then it's easier to make that informed choice.

Personally, I've had Tokinas, Tamrons and Sigmas. But I am happier but poorer for having (counts on fingers.....) what eight Nikkors currently (mostly trading in secondhand examples on Fleabay and the like)

Mostly there's a healthy secondhand market, and I've certainly not lost much where I've chosen to sell off lenses I didn't like or where I could rationalise or raise dosh for another purchase.

Remember you can always do that - and keep any box etc!

Edited by K12beano on Saturday 19th January 21:50

[Downton Mini]

I've spent the time since asking about this looking on the net/ebay and have deiceded to try and get a Nikkor 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR IF ED G Lens ( I assume form comments that this is a relativly decent lens they have been selling on Ebay for arounf £275 used and are £400 upwards for a new one (I have seen a new one on Amazon for around £340 new but not convinced they are UK ones)just need to catch one ending at the right time that doesn't start getting silly prtice wise

[LocoBlade]

The cheaper ones on Amazon marketplace are grey imports so not UK stock as I enquired about the £200 55-300mm lenses recently. They're still covered by Nikon warranty in the UK though so I wouldn't necessarily let that put you off, the only thing you need to be careful of really is that they aren't a lens from a kit thats been split from its camera (so no proper box) or a refurb, and obviously being non uk stock means they don't qualify for any Nikon UK cash back offers etc, which is why I enquired as I wanted to take advantage of the January cash back.

[Downton Mini]

I've just found a lens listed as new but its from a kit the guy says its never been used. But would it be covered by a nikon warranty? He wants £300 for it which seams like a bargin.

[CarMac]

Even if one exists, Nikon warranties are non-transferable.

[Ali Chappussy]

CarMac said:

Even if one exists, Nikon warranties are non-transferable.

This is true. Beware of Ebay ads which say that the lens is still in warranty, it won't be. I bought my camera under this premise, the guy either knew and didn't tell me about not being able to tansfer the warranty from him to me or he genuinely didn't know. Fortunately, the camera has worked perfectly since I've had it.