Interchangable Lens?

[Lynn]

I have been thinking about upgrading to a digital SLR and was wondering if my Nikon N65 lens (AF Nikkor 28-80 and AF Nikkor 70-300) would fit a Nikon Digital SLR? That would save from having to buy new glass right off the bat!

[gmtech79]

Yes they will work fine on nikon DSLR's with the only exception being the D40, since it does not have an auto focus motor, they would work on it but you would always have to manual focus.

[K1W1]

Yes they will work fine on nikon DSLR's with the only exception being the D40, since it does not have an auto focus motor, they would work on it but you would always have to manual focus.


Just for clarification the D40x will not work either for the reasons outlined above.

[coldrain]

Both will work on a D70(S)/D50/D80, not on a D40/D40X which has the internal Nikon autofocus motor missing.

The 28-80 is the film equivalent of the 18-55 kitlens. You will miss wide angle due to the 1.5x crop factor of the smaller than 35mm film sensor.
Also, the quality of of the 28-80 kitlens will disappoint a bit on a digital SLR, just be aware of that.

The 70-300 G (I am guessing that is the version you have) also will disappoint in the long end, where it loses contrast considerably and loses sharpness, so do not expect great results. A Sigma 70-200 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro will cost you around $220 and will perform quite a bit better.

So in short, they will work. But, they will not give great image quality results.

[Stoller]

Both will work on a D70(S)/D50/D80, not on a D40/D40X which has the internal Nikon autofocus motor missing.

:eek: Hey Coldrain, you forgot the D200 will work too...:D

[coldrain]

:eek: Hey Coldrain, you forgot the D200 will work too...:D
I know, I just figured the D200 and D2x would be out of the poster's budget :p .

[wrestlingreport]

Both will work on a D70(S)/D50/D80, not on a D40/D40X which has the internal Nikon autofocus motor missing.

The 28-80 is the film equivalent of the 18-55 kitlens. You will miss wide angle due to the 1.5x crop factor of the smaller than 35mm film sensor.
Also, the quality of of the 28-80 kitlens will disappoint a bit on a digital SLR, just be aware of that.

The 70-300 G (I am guessing that is the version you have) also will disappoint in the long end, where it loses contrast considerably and loses sharpness, so do not expect great results. A Sigma 70-200 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro will cost you around $220 and will perform quite a bit better.

So in short, they will work. But, they will not give great image quality results.

Here we go again. Do you work for sigma?
JUNK GLASS.
I would bet 1000 dollars her lens ain't a G
And its better than the sigma trash

[coldrain]

Sigma lenses are not trash. And the Sigma lens I mentioned is without a doubt better than the Nikon 70-300 G. And also better than the more expensive 70-300 ED.

That is not an opinion, that is just a fact.

[Prospero]

Here we go again. Do you work for sigma?
JUNK GLASS.
I would bet 1000 dollars her lens ain't a G
And its better than the sigma trash

The Sigma is definitly not junk glass. It's better than the G and possibly better than the ED. For the price, it is an excellent bargain. Also, the macro mode of the lens is very nice, and definitly distincts the lens from the Nikkor alternatives.

Why are you still around, anyway? Every single post you type seems to be aimed at offending someone.

Lynn, to go back to your question. Despite the two lenses being not all that good, there's no need to buy lenses straight away. Just try them on your new camera. They may be good enough to fit your needs. From what I have heard the Nikkor 70-300G can deliver images that are quite good when it is stopped down beyond f/8. Besides that the lens is a lighter and more compact than the other 70-300s, so that may well be a reason to keep the lens. If you have the Nikon 70-300ED, the lens will actually be quite good.

[jcon]

Why are you still around, anyway? Every single post you type seems to be aimed at offending someone.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Prospero. I was going to ask the same question. I havent seen him/her offer one piece of advice to anyone since he/she has shown up.

[K1W1]

I get the impression that some of you might be confused about the OPs 70-300 G lens.
If she is currently using it on a film camera it is not the cheap plastic 70-300G it will more likely be the 70-300G ED lens if it is a G lens at all.

[Prospero]

I get the impression that some of you might be confused about the OPs 70-300 G lens.
If she is currently using it on a film camera it is not the cheap plastic 70-300G it will more likely be the 70-300G ED lens if it is a G lens at all.

You're right, I was a little too quick in making that assumption. Also, I misread the post of wrestlingreport (I thought he said he was betting a 1000 dollars that the Sigma was not a G lens) so most of my reply made no sense. Anyway, I changed it now.
Thanks for your post.

[coldrain]

I get the impression that some of you might be confused about the OPs 70-300 G lens.
If she is currently using it on a film camera it is not the cheap plastic 70-300G it will more likely be the 70-300G ED lens if it is a G lens at all.
The 70-300 G is from the film era already anyway. This is also the reason why it is full frame (Nikon never had a full frame DSLR). And I am totally sure the N65 mentioned is a camera is capable of using the G lenses. It was introduced in 2001 or 2002, and can use all AF-D/I/S/P lenses (full frame of course). The G lenses actually were introduced for these N series cameras!

It is not an old SLR at all, in fact one of the most recent ones. It was an entry level model that was supposed to compete with the EOS 300N/V and corresponding models from Minolta and Pentax.
And you can be very sure that most of the 70-300 G lenses were bought together with the N65 and other entry level film SLRs from Nikon.
The 28-80 f3.5-4.5 kit lens that came with the N65 is a G lens itself, and I would not be suprised of the 70-300 G was also offered in a 2-lens kit with the N65.

[K1W1]

Coldrain,

You missed the point again.
There are TWO 70-300 G lenses. There is the cheap plastic one and the one with the ED elements.
As you obviously know what you are talking about it would be helpful to other less experienced people if you were more specific so that your posts did not foster confusion. The idea is to help people not confuse them.

Cheap plastic 70-300G lens (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom70-300mmf_4-56g/index.htm)

70-300 G ED lens (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom70-300mmf_4-56d/index.htm)

[Prospero]

Coldrain,

You missed the point again.
There are TWO 70-300 G lenses. There is the cheap plastic one and the one with the ED elements.
As you obviously know what you are talking about it would be helpful to other less experienced people if you were more specific so that your posts did not foster confusion. The idea is to help people not confuse them.

Cheap plastic 70-300G lens (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom70-300mmf_4-56g/index.htm)

70-300 G ED lens (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom70-300mmf_4-56d/index.htm)

The other lens you linked to is the 70-300 D ED. I have never heard of the G ED myself, the only G ED is the latest 70-300, with VR.

[Rooz]

NO SIGMA TRASH

lol dayum that made me laugh.

[wrestlingreport]

The 70-300 G is from the film era already anyway.

No wonder you think sigma is better than nikon.
I have some swamp land in florida for sale.
Interested?

[wrestlingreport]

NO SIGMA TRASH

lol dayum that made me laugh.

Im glad you enjoyed.
Now sell your Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 and buy a Nikon 12mm - 24mm and you can say the same!!!

But then Coldrain says the off brands are better.
LMFAO
Lets compare the sigmas $200 70-300 apo to the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF You saved 75 dollars and own a piece of junk.

[coldrain]

Im glad you enjoyed.
Now sell your Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 and buy a Nikon 12mm - 24mm and you can say the same!!!

But then Coldrain says the off brands are better.
LMFAO
Lets compare the sigmas $200 70-300 apo to the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF You saved 75 dollars and own a piece of junk.
Can you refrain from this stuff?

The Sigma is a better lens, and you probably know that as well. People actually coem here for information, not this stuff.

[coldrain]

Coldrain,

You missed the point again.
There are TWO 70-300 G lenses. There is the cheap plastic one and the one with the ED elements.
As you obviously know what you are talking about it would be helpful to other less experienced people if you were more specific so that your posts did not foster confusion. The idea is to help people not confuse them.

There is only one "G" 70-300, or at least there was only one "G" 70-300.
This 70-300 G is the cheap plastic one, as you put it. It is one of the worst 70-300's money can buy, with a lot of optical problems (internal reflections, vey soft above 200mm, soft over the whole range, low contrast, especially at longer focal lengths). Both older 70-300 lenses are based on a Tamron design, whether Tamron also produced them is unclear to me.
The D ED version is almost the same in configuration, but it has one small ED element. This does not make it a good lens, but slightly better than the G version.

The new 70-300 VR G ED lens has gained a big ED lens element (bringing the count to two), and this has improved the older 70-300 D ED a lot. The difference especially at 300mm is night and day. We are clearly not talking about this lens.

My assumption is that the original poster has the 70-300 G, because the OP has an entry level SLR for which the 70-300 G version was released in the first place. The OP also has the original 28-80 G kitlens.

But it does not make that big a difference, whether the OP has a G or a D ED version, since both are not all that great. especially at 200mm up. It is still not a lens to desire on a DSLR, and that was my point. To the original poster.

[jcon]

I have some swamp land in florida for sale.
Interested?

I'd be interested in watching you jump in and never come out!:cool: