hi everyone! just like to ask kung sino dito ang meron 70-300mm G, post your pics.. some reviews say that its a bad lens.. kse mura lang... but for me mukhang ok naman, just post your sample shoots of this lens!:Grin:

i have this lens, not a bad lens but have difficulty in focusing in low light, but with available light this is a good lens at a very cheap price

here's a sample,
http://static.flickr.com/68/203124332_c346232c61_o.jpg
Handheld
300mm, f/5.6, 1/60s

wow very nice..... paki lagay narin details.... coz its said that may sweet spot daw ang lenteng ito.....

posted details above, i'll look for other samples at different focal lengths, thanks

thanks! ill wait for your other shoot

I would say its not one of the best lens around, but the performance of 70-300G is not bad. Although, when I had it once its quite hard to hand-held it. I'm attaching some pics I had with I went to Bohol. I just sold mine 3weeks ago because I was looking for a constant apperture telephoto lens.

http://static.flickr.com/106/272954040_596ebacbd5.jpg?v=0
1/500, 70mm, f5.6 (cropped)

http://static.flickr.com/83/272952868_81f326f01e.jpg?v=0
1/500, 70mm, f8

http://static.flickr.com/121/272952873_f12d5bc945.jpg?v=0
1/500, 300mm, F5.6

I usually set my image optimization at High Saturation and Adobe RGB colorspace.

Come to think of it, its a pretty good lens when using in these type of situations (non-low-lite conditions).

cheers!

I agree with Melvin. Under strong lighting conditions (in fact, perhaps limited to direct sunlight), it should be ok. But even under cloudy conditions, the lens could already be handicapped - prone to produce fuzzy (poor color acuity) photos and prone to vignetting (darker backfround) - especially if we're talking about a maximum f4.5 opening.

The primary role of the lens (and even telescopes) is to capture light - more light just means more color, faster focusing, and better pictures. Given the same building materials, a lens with a larger aperture (f/2.8 or less) will capture more light and will produce superior photos. The problem is that it is more difficult (and more expensive) to design and manufacture zooms with large apertures.

Personally, I am not even happy with my f3.5 zoom because it only works well under direct sunlight. So I'm saving up for an f2.8 zoom (most likely the non-IFs 80-200). Kung may extra di yung bagong 70-200 f2.8. But my wife will kill me surely if i tell her that we have to move junior to a public school because I spent his tuition on a lens (hahaha).

Kidding aside, if you are planning to buy a new zoom, go for the f2.8's ED;s. DOesnt even have to be "If-s" because the aperture is already big and will surely allow you to focus fast enough.

Just my two centavos worth. I apologize in advance to those who have this lens. I'm sure its a great lens overall. I just have a personal bias for lenses with large apertures (f2.8 and higher).

i have this lens as well. i'll try to post some samples later today.

it's a fair lens, esp. considering the price. bang for buck is the phrase that comes to mind. it's light, cheap and works well in good lighting conditions (daylight). there are situations where carrying my 80-200 makes me standout too much or it simply is too heavy to conveniently carry for a whole day of fun shooting, so off goes the 80-200 and on comes the 70-300.

Is it worth it to get the ED version or the standard version will just suffice.

Is it worth it to get the ED version or the standard version will just suffice.

if you believe the various online reviews, then the G version should be good enough. i personally only have no experience with the ED version. never had the "what if i got the ED version?" itch after i bought my G version.

hth.

If you are buying new lenses, I believe "ED" is a necessity, especially for digital cameras. Extra-low Dispertion (ED) glass was developed by Nikon to reduce the effects of chromatic aberration, in which light of different wavelengths is brought to different points of focus. It does not matter what sort of camera the lens is attached to ED glass will provide a superior result compared with a lens of similar specification that does not have ED glass.
IMHO, I believe in paying a premium for ED.

For other features like IF-S, puede na to pay a premium if you really need fast focusing. For VR, I have my biases again. Monopods and tripods (assuming the situation permits their use), are significantly cheaper if you want to avoid vibrations. Magaang naman ang monopod and very portable. Furthermore, you can cut vibrations by taking multiple exposures. The first photo usually is prone to shakes because of the motion of your finger pressing the shutter button. But the succeeding shots should be steady because you keep the shutter button depressed.

Medyo may tampo din ako for camera manufaturers in general developing new zoom lenses with VR. I believe the VR feature should be in the camera and not the lenses.

I think Sony has done this for their new SLR's. Ergo, no need for VR lenses since the "Super Steady Shot" feature is in the camera.

Go for ED, IF-S is ok since it seems all new lenses have them anyway. VR lenses on the other hand could become a redundant technology if (or when) Nikon develops a camera with a VR feature. Sony did. Why cant Nikon?

interesting that you mention ED and AF-S, Noel. very valid points. :)

why not consider waiting for the 70-300G ED-IF AF-S VR that was announced sometime back. at least this way you take advantage of the latest in lens technology. unless of course you're on a budget.... :)

add ko lang about IF-S, its useful for those using Polarizers. Instead of adjusting the polarizer each time your lens focuses, you can concentrate on what to capture since internal focusing aside from it focus fast.

Once again, this feature depends on the type of photography you are in.

I would rather go for EDs since those glasses provide more color and sharper photos.

Still saving for a VR, ED, IF-S lens =)

I totally agree with Noel. Larger appertures are the way to go...

But if you are in a budget, but looking for a decent telephoto lens that you won't be using in low-lite conditions, then this lens is good for you. However, if you really need to shoot this lens in low-lite, use a tripod, a very slow shutter and a High ISO. :D

well with regards to the ED version, i tried the ED version, and basically parang walang difference... mabigat lang ung lente than the G version, but in terms of quality.. parang pareho lang... in the ED version, it only has one ED lens.. and im not sure if having one ED lens will make a big difference.

About the 70-300mm VR, mukhang ok ito... pero magkano kaya? hehe

So parang peke lang pagka-ED niya, one element lang. Mas sulit yun G version kung ganun.

well based on nikon website... ED lens sa 70-300mm ED is only one element

Price of 70-300 VR posted on YG Billy's World of Photo. website - around HKD4,580 or roughly 30k PHP.

The VR has two ED elements and IF. Still not worth it pala kung ganyan lang. Considering the huge jump in price. Maybe I'll just settle for the cheaper non-ED version.

you may also want to look at the f2.8 80-200 ED. Even if its long and heavy, it will outperform any non ED zoom and all zooms with maximum aperture openings less than f3.5. I think the 70-300 zoom has a max opening of f4.5 and that needs a lot of light. The f2.8 zooms, they're for keeps.

@Brent,
Yup..I agree with you..with that price its better to settle with the G version na lang or save more for a constant aperture like the 80-200 f2.8.

@Noel

I know, I have a 70-200 already as my personal lens.

Wanted to get lenses for company use, para di naman malaspag lens ko.

I'm kinda on the lookout for a used 80-200 ED as well. Lagi lang ako nauunahan.

For the 70-300, thought of it as a cheap and light alternative lang for not so important shoots.

magkano ba ung 80-200 ED? how many types ba ang available na ganyang lente

here are some of my shots taken with the 70-300mm G lens by nikon.
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r45/Ergonphotography/Philippine-EagleCR.jpg
also this one
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r45/Ergonphotography/Eagle_CR.jpg

@ Eric,

Quite impressive!!! :)

Is this at 300 na?

@ Eric,

Quite impressive!!! :)

Is this at 300 na?
The First Shot with the white eagle is at 300mm. The second one not to sure maybe around 250mm. thanks Melvin.

wow dats nice, 300mm and 250mm... at what opening?

wow dats nice, 300mm and 250mm... at what opening?
Thanks Ricardo, its 1/3000 @ f5