70-300mm Zooms
Thomas Chapin
I was wondering if anyone had any experience or opinions (no doubt)
with 70-300mm zooms. Specifically, I'm interested in the Tamron SP 60-300,
3.8-5.4 macro zoom, the Nikkor 75-300 4.5-5.6 zoom, and the Sigma 70-300,
APO 4-5.6, or any other brand that will fit a Nikon F3. Obviously, I'm
interested in the best optical quality but I've never shot a zoom so I'd
appreciate some guidance on the ins and outs of zooms. Oh yeah, does the
Nikkor 75-300 have a tripod collar and any macro capability?
Thanks,
Thomas Chapin
--
Thomas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas Chapin School of Oceanography
Luigi Morelli
(Thomas Chapin) wrote:
> Hi
> I was wondering if anyone had any experience or opinions (no doubt)
> with 70-300mm zooms. Specifically, I'm interested in the Tamron SP 60-300,
> 3.8-5.4 macro zoom, the Nikkor 75-300 4.5-5.6 zoom, and the Sigma 70-300,
> APO 4-5.6, or any other brand that will fit a Nikon F3.
> Deleted....
Tom,
I have used the 75-300 AF APO f/4.5-5.6 Sigma on my Nikon F4S and F3.
This lens is about 4 years old, I believe there is a newer model out. As
far as I know, there is no difference optically between the manual and the
AF versions.
The quality is excellent, terrific contrast, very snappy color rendition,
great enlargements to 16x24, probably not mechanically as sturdy (or
heavy) as the Nikkor, but I am not a professional that may abuse the
equipment. I was so pleased with this relatively small and light lens
that I bought the Sigma 70-210 AF APO f/2.8 (quite big and heavy!), a
truly superb zoom that I have shot head to head with the Nikkor 80-200.
The Sigma has probably more contrast!
Luigi Morelli
Scott Nichol
: Hi
: I was wondering if anyone had any experience or opinions (no doubt)
: with 70-300mm zooms. Specifically, I'm interested in the Tamron SP 60-300,
: 3.8-5.4 macro zoom, the Nikkor 75-300 4.5-5.6 zoom, and the Sigma 70-300,
: interested in the best optical quality but I've never shot a zoom so I'd
: Nikkor 75-300 have a tripod collar and any macro capability?
: Thanks,
: Thomas Chapin
to answer your question about the nikkor 75-300mm, yes it does have
a tripod collar. i've been using this lens for about 3 years. i am
actually on my second one. if you want to know more about the first
one ask the Czech police in Prague... anyway, this is truly a beautiful
lens. it is expensive, but built solid. as your palm rests on the
push-pull collar of the zoom, the focus ring is right at your fore-
finger & thumb tips. the focus ring swings quickly, with little
damping. this may or may not be a concern for you. obviously if you're
using manual focus you want something that will focus quickly and
accurately. the nikkor does have a macro capability which lets you
focus at about 4-5 feet(?) i'm not positive about that number, but
check the nikon specs. i've made some really nice flower close-ups
with the macro setting. also, since it goes down to 75mm, you can use
it as a nice portrait lens as well. the optics are superb and i've
never had any problems with sharpness or contrast. i take mostly black
and white and typically make prints between 5x7 and 8x10.
while i give this lens my full endorsement, i have to admit that recently
i've bought a sigma lens to augment my setup. i am motivated to make this
switch because of the recent dramatic price increases by nikon. i think
this is absurd, and just another example of corporations padding their
profit margins under the guise of *economic hardship*. blech. get a
life NikonoSan.
scott
BLAINE8550
extremely sharp and contrasty. I feel I definitely got my money's worth
on this one.
George Kong
> I was wondering if anyone had any experience or opinions (no doubt)
> with 70-300mm zooms. Specifically, I'm interested in the Tamron SP 60-300,
> 3.8-5.4 macro zoom, the Nikkor 75-300 4.5-5.6 zoom, and the Sigma 70-300,
> APO 4-5.6, or any other brand that will fit a Nikon F3.
i can comment on the sigma: the recently-discontinued-but-still-available
75-300 APO is better than the newly-introduced 70-300 APO.
attached are some further details.
George S. Kong, Silicon Graphics, Inc., (415)390-3281 g...@sgi.com
> From: g...@khaki.esd.sgi.com (George Kong)
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.help,rec.photo.misc
> Subject: my tests of 70/75-300 zooms - Sigma vs. Cannon
> Date: 26 May 1995 22:18:57 GMT
>
> i just did my own test of the following lenses:
> Cannon 75-300 USM II (latest model)
> Sigma 70-300 APO (latest model)
> Sigma 75-300 APO (previous model, but still available new)
>
> conclusion:
> i'm keeping the (older) sigma 75-300 and returning the other two.
>
> test methodology:
> i tried all combinations of the following:
> - subject distance: 5' and 27'
> - focal length: longest and shortest
> - aperture: wide open, stopped down 1 stop, stopped down 2 stops
> (these are representative of the ways i plan to use the lens.)
> camera was on a tripod in all cases. close-focus subject was a
> newspaper page, far-focus subject was a back yard scene. frames
> were shot on kodak royal gold, processed and printed 4x6 by a
> competent local shop, and examined with an 8X loupe.
>
> results:
> subject 27' away:
> lenses performed identically for all focal length/aperture
> combinations i tried.
> subject 5' away:
> center of the frame:
> lenses performed identically for all focal length/aperture
> combinations i tried.
> edge of the frame @ 300 mm:
> sigmas identical, cannon noticeably less sharp.
> edge of the frame @ 70/75 mm:
> cannon very sharp, sigma 75-300 a little less sharp,
> sigma 70-300 noticeably less sharp.
>
> thus, the sigma 75-300 was consistently the best, except for slightly
> less edge sharpness at close focus / 75mm. both the other two had
> noticeably less edge sharpness at one focal length / focus distance
> combination. interestingly, i didn't find much difference between
> wide open and stopped down 1 or 2 stops in any of these tests.
> all lenses exhibited noticeable pincushion distortion at 300mm.
>
> some disadvantages of the sigma 75-300: (1) doesn't have the the
> macro mode that the newer sigma has, (2) it's a "push/pull-type"
> zoom, which i hate, and (3) it's louder than the cannon.
>
> still, i prefer it over the other two, for its optical performance.
>
> George S. Kong, Silicon Graphics, Inc., (415)390-3281 g...@sgi.com
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>> Newsgroups: rec.photo.help,rec.photo.misc
>> Subject: my tests of 70/75-300 zooms - Sigma vs. Cannon
>> Date: 26 May 1995 22:18:57 GMT
>>
>> i just did my own test of the following lenses:
>> Cannon 75-300 USM II (latest model)
>> Sigma 70-300 APO (latest model)
>> Sigma 75-300 APO (previous model, but still available new)
>>
>> i tried all combinations of the following:
>> - subject distance: 5' and 27'
>> - focal length: longest and shortest
>> - aperture: wide open, stopped down 1 stop, stopped down 2 stops
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How anyone can choose lenses based on machine prints
from even the very best shop on the palnets is beyond
mortal comprehension.
Even if you must use C-41 film to test lenses, at least
you could directly inspect the film and leave the fixed
focus machine printer out of the mix.
Regards, David Rosen
dr8192@albNYvms
dr8...@uacsc1.albAny.edu
George Kong
> >> shot on kodak royal gold, processed and printed 4x6 by a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> competent local shop, and examined with an 8X loupe.
> How anyone can choose lenses based on machine prints
> from even the very best shop on the palnets is beyond
> mortal comprehension.
>
> Even if you must use C-41 film to test lenses, at least
> you could directly inspect the film and leave the fixed
> focus machine printer out of the mix.
boy, am i getting beat up on this one! :-)
well, i went back and looked at the negs, and ended up with the
same conclusions that i came to from prints.
i was fairly confident of my examination of prints for the following
reason: the major problems i observed were all at the edges of the
frame. center sharpness was pretty comparable across all my trials.
since the discrepancy was observable from the center of a given print
to the edges of the same print, the degradation due to the photo shop
could not have caused it (i don't think...). any problems at the
center of the frame could have been masked by processing, but the
problems at the edges clearly dominated this test.
no doubt, my technique was crude, but it yielded a quick, relative
comparison of the 3 inexpensive zooms i was looking at with results
that i think are valid for the way i intend to use the lens, which
includes being able to get a reasonable image at the extremes of
focal length, aperture, and subject distance, rather than finding
a given lens' "best" region and being careful to stick to it.
George
dave jackson
Allan Starr
Martin Tai <marti...@canrem.com>, the following is a partial
listing of the ratings for zooms in the 75-300/ 100-300 range
: >
: > B) RATINGS BY COLOR PHOTO (GERMAN) max =100
: >
: > Sigma-AF-APO 4,5-5,6/75-300mm 72,6
: > Sigma-AF- 4,5-5,6/75-300mm 70,5
: >
: > Minolta-AF-APO 4,5-5,6/100-300mm 64,0
: > Minolta-AF 4,5-56/100-300mm 59,2
: > Tamron-AF 4,5-5,6/90-300mm 56,2
: > Minoita-AF-xi 4,5-5,6/100-300mm 55,1
: >
In the rec.photo.misc article <1995May19....@eso.org>,
Roland Reiss <rre...@hq.eso.org> wrote:
: >Here are some recent lens tests published in issue 6/95 of Color
Foto.
: >
: >Abrevations:
: > Res. Resolution
: > Cont. Contrast
: > Cent. Centering; contrast variation at 15.1mm and 15 and 30
lp/mm
: > Dist. Distortion
: > Vign. Vignetting
: > Total Total sum of points
: >
: >CF 6/95 Res. Cont. Cent. Dist. Vign. Total
: > max. 30 30 20 10 10 100
: >Tamron AF-Zoom 5.6/200-400mm 15.7 24.2 12 9 10 70.9
: >Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm 16.3 24.3 12 10 10 72.6
: >Olympus Zuiko Zoom 2.8/35-80mm 17.6 23.8 14 10 8 73.4
: >Nikon AF-Zoom 3.5-4.5/35-105mm 17.4 23.4 13 6 8 67.8
: >Sigma AF-Zoom 3.5-4.5/18-35mm 15.8 21.6 10 7 8 62.6
: >
: >
: >--
: >* Roland Reiss rre...@eso.org
: >* Optical Detectors +49-89-32006-390
: >* European Southern Observatory Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2
: >* D-85748 Garching, Germany
: >
Both articles reference tests from Color Foro (German). I find it
interesting that the latter article gives the
Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm zoom (presumably the new model) a total
rating of 72.6, which is equal to or greater than the ratings of the
lenses in the first article. Of particular interest is that the
new Minolta 75-300 is rated *higher* than the Minolta 100-300 APO zoom
(rating 64.0), which is Minolta's premium APO lens in this range, and
which by comparison has a smaller zoom ratio (3:1 vs 4:1) and costs
considerably more than the new 75-300 (non-APO).
:
I realize that this is only one comparison from one source
(Color Foto), but if other comparisons are similar, this new
Minolta 75-300 could be a killer of a deal ... or is it?
:
I would appreciate any comments regarding the above. In particular,
if anyone has the original Color Foto issues in which the Sigma lenses
and the Minolta 100-300 APO lens were tested, I would appreciate the
detailed ratings for these lenses (as in the latter article, listing
Res, Cont, Cent, Dist, and Vign in addition to totals) to compare with
the new Minolta lens.
:
I would also appreciate any ratings on the new Sigma 70-300 4.5-5.6
Macro.
:
Allan Starr
jlhe...@artsci.wustl.edu
>I have had the 70-300 APO Sigma zoom for about 2 months now. I find it
>extremely sharp and contrasty. I feel I definitely got my money's worth
>on this one.
How long/heavy is that 70-300 sigma zoom?
Chuck Kershner
for the price. it has a tripod ring, is solidly built, has rare earth glass,
focuses and zooms using separate rings insted of the push-pull nikon method.
lens is tack sharp, no aberrations at outer ends, and contrast is good across
entire zoom range. lens weighs a lot by today's standards, but then its got
a lot of glass. you can pick up this lens at f2.8 for about $700 or little less,
which is worth the price over a skimpier 4.5-5.6. i use nikkor lens for all
other
ranges except 70-210, so i don't work for sigma!! good luck.