Lens differences?
Discussion
Hi guys! 
I have a(nother...) question for you.
Apart from the obvious discrepancy in prices, what's the difference between an AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens and an AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED?
I'm assuming the latter is better. But is it lots of money's worth better? Anyone tried both?
I have a(nother...) question for you.
Apart from the obvious discrepancy in prices, what's the difference between an AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens and an AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED?
I'm assuming the latter is better. But is it lots of money's worth better? Anyone tried both?
Good assuming. I think this one may have come up before. (Try a search?)
If I can try and precis, the "ED" bit is a low dispersion glass, which means that a better quality image is likely in the vast range of circumstances. It won't be noticeable for snapshots, but will be for clear, good colour, high definition images!
I cannot remember if the construction and design differs otherwise.....
...I'll look that up in a mo.....
If I can try and precis, the "ED" bit is a low dispersion glass, which means that a better quality image is likely in the vast range of circumstances. It won't be noticeable for snapshots, but will be for clear, good colour, high definition images!
I cannot remember if the construction and design differs otherwise.....
...I'll look that up in a mo........and:
...same lens/group configuration from what I can see.
The "ED" has the advantage of F32, according to one of the tech sheets, but not the Nikon website(???) where non-ED is quoted to only F22, but that's no guarantee of quality.
ED should have an aperture ring (may be important depending upon body and your own preferences).
ED weighs more (there's more metal, less plastic in the construction), is a fraction shorter, takes a different lens hood (though they're both 62mm filter thread) and is compatible with one or two of the Nikon TCs.
>> Edited by beano500 on Friday 9th December 13:53
...same lens/group configuration from what I can see.
The "ED" has the advantage of F32, according to one of the tech sheets, but not the Nikon website(???) where non-ED is quoted to only F22, but that's no guarantee of quality.
ED should have an aperture ring (may be important depending upon body and your own preferences).
ED weighs more (there's more metal, less plastic in the construction), is a fraction shorter, takes a different lens hood (though they're both 62mm filter thread) and is compatible with one or two of the Nikon TCs.
About the G version Bjorn Rorslett said:
The first of its kind, in the "G" line of Nikkors without aperture collar, the light-weight silver-coloured 70-300 is really only suited for the consumer-type Nikon model. It has a very narrow focusing collar placed near its front end, and the rest of the exterior is taken by a large zoom control. A plastic lens mount and general wobbliness clearly show this is a consumer lens. Combined with its feather weight making it prone to vibration, this means it isn't sitting comfortably on professional Nikons. Hand-holding the lens and trusting its AF are the only feasible operational options, which don't suit me.
Optically speaking, the 70-300 isn't really that bad and given you avoid shooting distant subjects with the lens set to the longer focal lengths, quite decent image quality can be obtained. You need to stop down a bit, to f/8 or so, to get the best quality. Colour fringing is not a big problem despite the lack of ED glass, but colour saturation won't reach up to ED lenses.
>> Edited by beano500 on Friday 9th December 13:53
SGirl said:
<cheeky>I don't suppose anyone's got any test shots from either lens, have they?</cheeky>
Hi S
Seems like you've gone and bought a decent camera then 
I've had the ED since 1999 and it's one of the few things that's gone up in price, not down. I haven't done image comparisons with the 'G' version but the ED feels like a proper lens, while the G feels like a plastic toy in comparison.
Posting isn't much use in judging lens quality but I can mail you my RAW test shot taken with the ED if you like...?
simpo two said:
Hi S
Howdy Simpo!
No, I haven't.
I like mine! I was just shopping around, style of fing. Considering my options, if you like. 
simpo two said:
I've had the ED since 1999 and it's one of the few things that's gone up in price, not down. I haven't done image comparisons with the 'G' version but the ED feels like a proper lens, while the G feels like a plastic toy in comparison.
Posting isn't much use in judging lens quality but I can mail you my RAW test shot taken with the ED if you like...?
Interesting. That's worth knowing - thanks! Yes please, by all means e-mail me the RAW test shot - you've still got my e-mail address, have you?
page3 said:
I just got the G because at under £100 it seems an absolute bargain. The best way for me to improve my photos is to improve my technique and understanding of the camera (D70). A better lens can wait...
Actually you have an equally valid point. I can't deny that the G is good value; one approach might be to save splashing out on more expensive lenses until you feel that the cheaper ones are holding you back.
SGirl, will try to mail it to you; hope 5.85Mb is not too big.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff