Nikon 70-300 Lens

[jmat5]

Newbie here. I just purchased A Nikon D70 and am looking to purchase a 70-300 Lens. Can someone tell me what the difference is on the Nikon
70-300mm f/4-5.6 'G' Autofocus and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED lens. I am planning on doing alot of action shots. Water sports, football, basketball. So lighting for football and basketball may be an issue. And why does the ED cost $210.00 more than the 'G' lens. Thanks for any input.

[TNB]

If lighting is an issue for sports/action, have you considered the F2.8 70-200 VR version or is 200 too short?

http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/70716/Wt58925.jpg

[Suprpntr]

I have the g lens. Its okay, takes nice pics in good light in the mid range. Of course what do you want for a hundred bucks? Supposedly the other is better made but reviews say it really isn' that much better.

Seems most here go for the Sigma 70300.

[wh0128]

Your ISO levels will be really high in low lighting conditions such as football and basketball games, which means your pictures may have noise, but you can correct it in Photoshop as well as many other noise reduction software programs. If you could spare the money, I'd go with the 70-200 f/2.8 that TNB is suggesting, but I am assuming since you are looking at this type of lens, your budget isn't 1200$.

[K1W1]

If you are considering the Nikon 70-300 G lens the Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens actually works better in less than perfect lighting conditions and at least as well in good conditions, has the quasi macro facility and is under US$200 brand new.
I've taken some 3500 sports photos with my Sigma and have veen very happy with it in terms of value for money. Of course a 70-300 f2.8 will be better but it's also more than four times the price over here.

[jmat5]

Thanks for the info. I don't think the 70-200mm will get me close enough. Has anyone tried the new Nikon 70-200mm f/4-5.6G VR ED AFS lens and if so will that also give me noise at less than desirable lighting? Cost around $528.00 at Ritz.

[Jason25]

Thanks for the info. I don't think the 70-200mm will get me close enough. Has anyone tried the new Nikon 70-200mm f/4-5.6G VR ED AFS lens and if so will that also give me noise at less than desirable lighting? Cost around $528.00 at Ritz.

I'm guessing you mean the new 70-300 VR? Not enough info out there yet, but I've seen one person's thoughts on the lens after being able to play with it at a show in Europe. It seems to be a good performer from what he said.

Noise is relative to the camera's sensor, and has nothing to do with the lens on it :)

[jcon]

Noise is relative to the camera's sensor, and has nothing to do with the lens on it :)


Wrong! It has to do with settings and Lenses affect setttings. Example, take an 18-50 F3-5 lens and comepare that to a 17-55 2.8 lens and you will get much, much better low light photographs with the 2.8 lens because you are able to use better low light settings. The lens has alot to do with noise.

jmat5, if 200mm is good enough, look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Its comparative to the Nikon equivallent. I believe its priced around $800 with the Nikon a little bit more. The VR version for Nikon is over $1200.

If lighting is going to be a problem you NEED at the very least a 2.8 lens.

[Jason25]

Wrong! It has to do with settings and Lenses affect setttings. Example, take an 18-50 F3-5 lens and comepare that to a 17-55 2.8 lens and you will get much, much better low light photographs with the 2.8 lens because you are able to use better low light settings. The lens has alot to do with noise.

jmat5, if 200mm is good enough, look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Its comparative to the Nikon equivallent. I believe its priced around $800 with the Nikon a little bit more. The VR version for Nikon is over $1200.

If lighting is going to be a problem you NEED at the very least a 2.8 lens.
Doh. My mind is definitely elsewhere today, I wasn't thinking that in-depth!

[jmat5]

Would a flash help at all? Or will it not have any effect on a Friday night football game.

[Jason25]

It would if it can reach far enough :) The built-in wouldn't cut it. Of course, you could use a SB-800 and a Better Beamer for some serious flash reach.

[jcon]

I would think you would be too far for a flash to work properly. With that said, when I go to commercial wrestling events(WWE) I use a flash on some shots and they turn out fine. I would guess its about the same distance.

It doesnt hurt to try, maybe before throwing down the cheese on a new flash, you could borrow or rent one and give it a test run to see if it helps. its always nice to have a flash though!



**EDIT** The other Jason beat me to the punch:D

[XaiLo]

I'm going to have to a gree with jason25 noise is a result of the sensors inability to distinguish discretely the information that's being passed to it in this case (light). While using a slow lens further reduces the the reflected light when compared to a fast lens it is not in and of itself creating the noise. That rests solely on the capturing media... high ISO noise is a result of the captured information being amplified.

[TNB]

Thanks for the info. I don't think the 70-200mm will get me close enough. Has anyone tried the new Nikon 70-200mm f/4-5.6G VR ED AFS lens and if so will that also give me noise at less than desirable lighting? Cost around $528.00 at Ritz.
An F/5.6 in low level lighting? How fast will it focus in low level lighting? Just a couple of things to consider if action/sports photos are going to be taken in low light situation. It appears to be more of a question of the reach of the pocket book, more than the reach of a lens--one may just end up paying twice to acheive the desired results. I know my Sigma 300 SUCKS in low light, but that's also why I own the Nikkor F/2.8 VR.

[jmat5]

Thanks for the info folks. Like I said I am a newbie just got my camera last week. This is a great site and I have learned alot on this site the last couple of weeks. My main purpose of the camera is to take shots of my three kids who are very active. We water ski and they all play sports. I may get the 70-300 VR to take photos of them on the back of the boat and then figure out what to do for next football season over the next few months. Looks like my only option would be to go with a 300mm f/2.8 and it looks like that costs around $4500.00. I may have to just take alot of far away shots.

[jmat5]

Where does one go to rent lenses? This may also be an option for me.

[jcon]

I am currently renting the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR from this place for an upcomming wedding....

http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Nikon

I will share my experience when its complete, the lens is in the mail and was a very easy ordering process. For sports, I think this would be a good fit for you, its fast(2.8) and has VR. I know you want a little more reach but dont forget, you can always crop!

[VTEC_EATER]

Well, I would think a night time football game (stadium lights) would have plenty of light on the subject, but I have never tried shooting at a night time football game. You could switch to full manual, shoot at the largest apaeture, shutter speeds maybe at 1/320, bump the iso up to 800 and you should get some good shots. I would start there, and see how things turn out.


But I dont have the experience in this specific photography so maybe I should keep my big mouth shut.

[tcadwall]

Pro football probably has pretty good lighting. But most highschools, have just about enough light for the players to see the ball. Not enough for fast shutterspeeds, unless you have fast glass - and I am sure that many fields would still not be too easy to shoot.

[jcon]

I am currently renting the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR from this place for an upcomming wedding....

http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Nikon

I will share my experience when its complete, the lens is in the mail and was a very easy ordering process. For sports, I think this would be a good fit for you, its fast(2.8) and has VR. I know you want a little more reach but dont forget, you can always crop!


Received this bad boy in the mail today and all I can say is WOW:eek: It deffinatly is a monster! It seems like it focuses faster than my Sigma 18-50 2.8, although I could do without the clicking noise it makes after the picture has been taken. Cant wait to use this for the wedding Saturday! This will deffinatly go atop my wish list with the 17-55 2.8.

As for rentglass.com, easy to deal with and will rent from them again if I need to. I do wish they had provided a tracking number instead of a delivery confirmation number, but other than that, top notch!

[rawpaw18]

Jason,
It is a beast to say the least. It is a lot to handle. Get some practice in before the wedding. Fast af is one of the big reasons I bought this one. It is fast.

[jmat5]

Jason, Do you know if you can use a teleconverter with this lens and if so how much more range can you get with it?

[jcon]

Jason, Do you know if you can use a teleconverter with this lens and if so how much more range can you get with it?


I assume you mean the 70-200 2.8 VR? If so, I dont see why you couldnt use a teleconverter. I am sure someone can give a more deffinate answer but I dont see it being a problem. As for the extra range, it depends on what teleconverter you get. Here is a link to Nikons site with a few of the Teles listed.....

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/Teleconverter/tc-17e-2a.htm

Also, I want to point out that with Teleconverters you lose atleast 1.5 steps on the Aperture, so that 2.8 wont be 2.8 anymore.

[VTEC_EATER]

Did the lens come with any filter on it? Do they give you an option of filters with the rental? I may look into renting one of these next summer for some track day photos and I have been thinking of using a polarizing filter on it. I just dont want to shell out the money for a polarizing filter for a lens that isnt mine.

[jcon]

Yes, it came with a protecting filter on it, it appears to be just a piece of clear glass. Its a Quantaray 77mm DMC-1A filter(w/e that is). I took it off as I never use filters. It did come with the tri-pod collar and lens hood. Very well packed and shipping is very cheap. They also give you a damage waiver option for just $3!

[corndog]

Nobody mentioned anything about the D glass versus the G...anyone?

[TNB]

Yes, it came with a protecting filter on it, it appears to be just a piece of clear glass. Its a Quantaray 77mm DMC-1A filter(w/e that is). I took it off as I never use filters. It did come with the tri-pod collar and lens hood. Very well packed and shipping is very cheap. They also give you a damage waiver option for just $3!
I spend the extra money on "protective" filters--I also have a 77mm Quantaray Digital Profession Serues Filter with a crack in it as a result of flying debris. Consequently, it probably saved my Nikon 70-200 VR lens.


Nobody mentioned anything about the D glass versus the G...anyone?
What's to mention? "Type G lenses are not equipped with a lens aperture ring. Unlike other CPU lenses, there is no need to lock the aperture ring at the minimum aperture setting (maximum f/-number when using a type G lens", Nikon D200 Guide, Page 176.

Don't forget, there are more lens and teleconverter specs at Nikon USA.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5