Nikon 70-300 VR lens

[Rob]

Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
and not the SW focus.

Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??

Need a fast AF and VR

thanks.

[nospam]

In article <jph820$v6$1...@dont-email.me>, Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:

> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>
> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>
> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

it's a very good lens and well worth the money.

> My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
> and not the SW focus.

that's an old lens and not that good. it doesn't have afs focusing and
its vr is first generation and not as good as the 70-300. the only
advantage is it goes to 400 versus 300 but it's not that great past 300
so you aren't really gaining anything. it's definitely not worth the
money.

> Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
> 50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??

don't even think about that lens. zooms with that wide of a range are
for convenience, not for quality, not that sigma can do quality.

depending on your budget, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be a consideration. it's
a *lot* more money but it's a much better lens too.

[Rich]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:220520122032185186%
nos...@nospam.invalid:

> In article <jph820$v6$1...@dont-email.me>, Rob <mesa...@google.com>
wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>>
>> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>>
>> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.
>
> it's a very good lens and well worth the money.
>
>> My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical
type
>> and not the SW focus.
>
> that's an old lens and not that good. it doesn't have afs focusing and
> its vr is first generation and not as good as the 70-300.

How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm? Better or worse?

[Savageduck]

On 2012-05-22 16:38:36 -0700, Rob <mesa...@google.com> said:

> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

The new AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR, is a very good value lens
which produces good results, and is a great improvement over the old
non-VR 70-300mm I have the new lens and have owned the old. Here are
some of the images it has produced for me with a D300s:
< http://db.tt/zyiTdFvy >
< http://db.tt/yzx7vAQi >
< http://db.tt/KXNMS1YS >
< http://db.tt/Aur6eA0g >
< http://db.tt/VhVhuttQ >

>
> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>
> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

It is very good, but certainly not a 70-200mm VRII at almost 3X the price.

>
> My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
> and not the SW focus.

I hardly ever use my 80-400mm any more. It is not the sharpest of
lenses, and it is certainly slow.

>
> Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
> 50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??
>
> Need a fast AF and VR
>
> thanks.

Depending on the $$$ you care to spend, the 70-300mm VR should be on
the consideration list for the hobbyist.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Oops!
I forgot to resize that P-51;
< http://db.tt/39K0jboe >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Rob]

I think that lens is a DX. I am after a D800 as well so this is not an
option.

r

[Savageduck]

Nope!
It is not a DX.
In my hand I have an AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:
>Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>
>Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>
>Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

It is a consumer grade lens. It is cheap, and for
example has no tripod mount. It's a good buy for the price.
It is sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, but frankly if that is
indeed the range you want even the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is
better, and the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is far better, even with
a 1.4x teleconverter (plus it works with a 2x TC too).

If you need a sharp lens from 200mm to 300mm, this is not it.

The only real advantage of this lens is the price tag.

See http://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htm for a reliable review.

>My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
>and not the SW focus.

Despite everything else, keep in mind that it is a
professional grade lens. It is quite sharp from 80 to
300mm. It cost less than a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII plus a
2x TC, but doesn't AF nearly as fast.

If you really do need fast AF, this is not it. It is
not extremely sharp from 300 to 400mm, but still it is
about as sharp as any other similar option in terms of
weight, mobility, and zoom.

The 80-400mm can be used with a 1.4x TC at least on a
D3S, and even with a 2X TC on a D4 or D800. Neither
makes for a particularly fantastic lens, but that would
easily beat the Sigma at 500mm.

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

>Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
>50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??

Not if you want a sharp lens.

>Need a fast AF and VR

1) Look at the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with a TC if you can
deal with the cost.

2) The 70-300mm VR might well be the next step back from
that, but only because the AF is faster than the
80-400mm.

3) You might want to rent an 80-400mm and give it a try
first, because while it isn't an AF-S lens it is a
relatively high lens.

Another option, if you are shooting with a DX body, is
the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Not quite up the the VRII model,
but the biggest difference is vignetting that does not
affect DX sensors.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

[Trevor]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012052301301438165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

>>> How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm? Better or worse?
>>
>>
>> I think that lens is a DX. I am after a D800 as well so this is not an
>> option.
>

> Nope!
> It is not a DX.
> In my hand I have an AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR.

I think he meant the 55-300 was DX, but IMO if he is buying a D800 a 70-200
VR would be a better match anyway.

Trevor.

[Bruce]

The question was about the 55-300mm, which *is* a DX lens.

[Savageduck]

Agreed.
If he is spending the $$$ on a D800 he should be able to afford the
quality glass needed for optimal performance of that camera. I have the
70-200mm f2.8 VRII on my with list along with a lot of other desirable
glass I can't justify buying, or afford right now.
Sometimes I think I must be crazy to have spent what I have on cameras,
lenses and kit as a hobbyist. I believe I have got reasonable bang for
my bucks by resisting impulse buying the latest and greatest. That said
I have my wish list and I chip away at that whenever the opportunity
arises.

Rob did not specify the DSLR he intended using when he first posed the
question in his OP. Now that he has clarified his intent to buy a D800,
he is indicating he has the ability to spend some $8-12K to build a
working bag filled with a camera which demands great glass. The
70-300mm is an affordable compromise probably not well matched to the
D800. However it does a reasonable job on my D300s and the D700.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

OK! I got that.
Speed reading is a bitch!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[RichA]

On May 23, 3:42 am, Rob <mesam...@google.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/2012 10:35 AM, Rich wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid>  wrote in news:220520122032185186%
> > nos...@nospam.invalid:
>

> >> In article<jph820$v...@dont-email.me>, Rob<mesam...@google.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >>> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>
> >>> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>
> >>> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.
>
> >> it's a very good lens and well worth the money.
>
> >>> My other option is the Nikon 80-400  but the AF is slow mechanical
> > type
> >>> and not the SW focus.
>
> >> that's an old lens and not that good. it doesn't have afs focusing and
> >> its vr is first generation and not as good as the 70-300.
>
> > How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm?  Better or worse?
>
> I think that lens is a DX.  I am after a D800 as well so this is not an
> option.
>
> r

Oh, I thought it was replacing the 70-300mm. Thanks.

[Bruce]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>Rob did not specify the DSLR he intended using when he first posed the
>question in his OP. Now that he has clarified his intent to buy a D800,
>he is indicating he has the ability to spend some $8-12K to build a
>working bag filled with a camera which demands great glass. The
>70-300mm is an affordable compromise probably not well matched to the
>D800. However it does a reasonable job on my D300s and the D700.

That's a good analysis.

The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.

If it is anywhere near as good as the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS it will
fill a gaping hole in Nikon's range and should be worth waiting for.

Nikon's consumer/ prosumer AF lenses in the 70/80 to 200/300/400mm
ranges have been weak for as long as I can recall.

The original AF 70-210mm f/4 was quite good but too expensive to make,
so it was replaced with the cheap and nasty 70-210mm f/4-5.6 which
inexplicably acquired a stellar reputation on the basis of one good
review. The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 was an excellent performer but was too
expensive, so was replaced, initially with the much cheaper 70-300mm
f/4-5.6 ED and later with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Both were made by
Tamron whose own version was better than both Nikkors with a price
nearer the cheaper Nikon G version.

Then along came the much more expensive AF-S 70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR,
also made by Tamron, offering optics that were no better than the ED
except in the 200mm to 300mm range but with VR.

The VR lens is optically nowhere near as good as the 75-300mm f/4-5.6
whose optical design was developed from the older 50-300mm AIS Nikkor
which was a particularly good optic considering its 6X zoom ratio. So
two very good optical designs (70-200mm f/4 and 75-300mm f/4-5.6) were
abandoned for cheaper and optically inferior versions. A pro grade
AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR will go a long way towards righting this wrong.


[The sharpest non-f/2.8 Nikkors in this range of focal lengths were
the 80-200mm f/4.5 and later f/4 versions which were made from 1969,
encompassing the pre-AI, AI and AI-S eras. Probably the worst Nikkor
in this range was the AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6. The best value for money
is probably the AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G, not because it is a great lens,
but because it is very good for such a low price.]

[PeterN]

I have the 80-400. Except for the slow focus it is fine. It is sharp
with decent contrast. For wildlife, I use the 70-200 with a 1.7
extender. I find it fast and sharp. What's your budget. For greater bird
reach I am thinking of getting the 2.0 APO extender.

--
Peter

[PeterN]

On 5/23/2012 4:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Rob<mesa...@google.com> wrote:
>> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>>
>> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>>
>> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.
>
> It is a consumer grade lens. It is cheap, and for
> example has no tripod mount. It's a good buy for the price.
> It is sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, but frankly if that is
> indeed the range you want even the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is
> better, and the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is far better, even with
> a 1.4x teleconverter (plus it works with a 2x TC too).
>
> If you need a sharp lens from 200mm to 300mm, this is not it.
>
> The only real advantage of this lens is the price tag.
>
> See http://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htm for a reliable review.
>
>> My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
>> and not the SW focus.
>
> Despite everything else, keep in mind that it is a
> professional grade lens. It is quite sharp from 80 to
> 300mm. It cost less than a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII plus a
> 2x TC, but doesn't AF nearly as fast.
>

I find a lot of image degradation when using the 1.4 extender. I can't
say about the TC2. Nikon says it won't work.


--
Peter

[Floyd L. Davidson]

I assume the above is in reference to the 80-400mm lens,
and not to the text you've quoted which is all about the
70-200mm instead.

You clipped my actual discussion of the 80-400mm with TC's:

"The 80-400mm can be used with a 1.4x TC at least on a
D3S, and even with a 2X TC on a D4 or D800. Neither

makes for a particularly fantastic lens, ..."

It is true that Nikon *cannot* recommend using any TC,
to include the 1.4x,, simply because until the recent
introduction of the D4 and D800 there was no camera
specified to AF a lens with a maximum aperture smaller
than f/5.6 (which of course the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6
necessarily is with any TC).

But as I noted, it does in fact work as stated (and
clearly I am suggesting that with other than the Nikon
pro bodies it almost certainly will *not* AF). And as
stated, "Neither makes for a particularly fantastic
lens".

[Stuffed Crust]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
> be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
> been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
> rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.

Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
the 70-300VR.

FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
latter, I've almost never used the former.

> The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 was an excellent performer but was too expensive,
> so was replaced,

I also have one of these, but it got snapped in two (!) when it fell off
the roof of my car when still attached to the camera. Ouch.

> The VR lens is optically nowhere near as good as the 75-300mm f/4-5.6
> whose optical design was developed from the older 50-300mm AIS Nikkor

I'd have to agree here. I don't know how to characterize it, but the
75-300's images simply look better, especially at the longer end.

Plus the 75-300 was built like a tank, except for the plastic bit that
attached the metal optics barrel to the lens mount.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[Bruce]

Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
>> be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
>> been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
>> rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.
>
>Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
>far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
>the 70-300VR.
>
>FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
>latter, I've almost never used the former.

I hesitate to advise people to buy the early AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8
because of the high failure rate of early non-D examples (ribbon cable
failure, spares unavailable) and of the late AF-S D examples because
of problems with the focusing motor. The optical performance at 200mm
at or near the minimum focusing distance is not great either, although
it was better in the last AF-S version.

Those of us who are used to coping with equipment failure and working
around performance problems won't necessarily be daunted, however the
average amateur tends to get very demoralised when problems occur and
usually returns the lens to Nikon for rectification in return for a
fairly startling invoice. ;-)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
>> be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
>> been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
>> rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.
>
>Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
>far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
>the 70-300VR.
>
>FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
>latter, I've almost never used the former.

Generally speaking I don't disagree about the 80-200mm
f/2.8 AF-D...

Except in this case the OP explicitly specified the
need for VR and fast AF. I thought it was going a bit
out on a limb to talk about the 80-400mm, but the
80-200mm borders on off topic!

Assuming of course that fast AF and VR actually are
needed.

[PeterN]

Yes, is was referring to the 60-400.
I have found mine to be an excellent lens, when I didn't need autofocus.

I also notice significant image degradation with my 1.4 extender. YMMV



--
Peter

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

I have the older 50-500 non VR Sigma lens, and I've taken some good pic's with
it, but I should have bought the 150-500... once you see how big this lens
really is you will only want to mount it when you want long range! I'd bet the
150-500 is better quality than the 50-500.

I have an old 70-300 non VR Nikon, and I'm fairly happy with it so I imagine the
new 70-300 will be better,

For wide range I use the new Nikon 28-300 but it's quite distorted... you will
need lens correction in ACR! It also suffers from short range focus diminished
mm's. unlike the other lenses I mentioned, but it's an OK snapshot lens.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Rob <mesa...@google.com> writes:

> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

I've only heard second-hand reports, but a number of them are
surprisingly favorable for what is essentially a consumer lens.

> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>
> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.
>
> My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical
> type and not the SW focus.
>
> Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
> 50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??
>
> Need a fast AF and VR

I'm working with the Sigma 120-400/4.5-5.6. At the time I bought it, a
few years back now, it was widely rated better than the Nikon 80-400,
and it was just over half the price. I've used it for roller derby
under available light, and am pretty darned happy with the focus (on a
Nikon D700).

Don't know what you're replacing or what body (or body type; DX vs. FX)
you'll be using it on, so I'm just answering your direct questions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> depending on your budget, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be a consideration. it's
> a *lot* more money but it's a much better lens too.

He did ask about "similar budget" or some such, so probably not. But,
yeah, if that's at all an option -- the 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4x and 2x
convertors is going to be better in nearly all situations than any of
the other options being discussed. Stretching for the 70-200 and doing
without the -300 part of the range for a while until you can afford to
add the TCs might be a good choice, too. I'd find the 4.5-5.6 maximum
apertures very limiting a lot of the time (depends what you shoot of
course).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ah.

If you're after a D800, I'd say you'd be a fool to hobble it with the
70-300. Go for the 70-200/2.8 *definitely* there, and look to add the
1.4x and maybe 2x TC when you can.

Also, in the early days on a D800, you can crop the 70-200 down to 300
or even 400.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:

> The original AF 70-210mm f/4 was quite good but too expensive to make,
> so it was replaced with the cheap and nasty 70-210mm f/4-5.6 which
> inexplicably acquired a stellar reputation on the basis of one good
> review. The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 was an excellent performer but was too
> expensive, so was replaced, initially with the much cheaper 70-300mm
> f/4-5.6 ED and later with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Both were made by
> Tamron whose own version was better than both Nikkors with a price
> nearer the cheaper Nikon G version.

These assertions that Nikon-branded lenses were made by Tamron (or
anybody else) is a red flag to me. How do you happen to know that, and
can you cite a source? That such things happen is frequently denied
pretty authoritatively.

On the other hand, if one *is* looking at the consumer-grade lenses,
then I very much agree that looking at the major third-party
manufacturers is a VERY good idea in general, regardless of who actually
makes the Nikon-branded lenses.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

> Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
>>> be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
>>> been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
>>> rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.
>>
>>Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
>>far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
>>the 70-300VR.
>>
>>FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
>>latter, I've almost never used the former.
>
> Generally speaking I don't disagree about the 80-200mm
> f/2.8 AF-D...
>
> Except in this case the OP explicitly specified the
> need for VR and fast AF. I thought it was going a bit
> out on a limb to talk about the 80-400mm, but the
> 80-200mm borders on off topic!

Precisely. I concur with this analysis.

> Assuming of course that fast AF and VR actually are
> needed.

Yes; he did say it initially, so I think it's proper to consider them a
requirement.

[Rob]

i was refering to the suggested 55-300 which is a DX lens.


Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens

DX-Format Zoom
82.5-450mm Equivalent Focal Length in FX
VR II Image Stabilization
Rounded 9-Blade Diaphragm

[Rob]

On 23/05/2012 12:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-05-22 16:38:36 -0700, Rob <mesa...@google.com> said:
>
>> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>
> The new AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR, is a very good value lens
> which produces good results, and is a great improvement over the old
> non-VR 70-300mm I have the new lens and have owned the old. Here are
> some of the images it has produced for me with a D300s:
> < http://db.tt/zyiTdFvy >
> < http://db.tt/yzx7vAQi >
> < http://db.tt/KXNMS1YS >
> < http://db.tt/Aur6eA0g >
> < http://db.tt/VhVhuttQ >
>

Like the images

How would they go to a 24" wide print?? I have a Epson 7900 printer.

[Rob]

Interesting you say that about the 28-300 but understand about the
distortion with making such a range within the lens.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-05-23 22:09:30 -0700, Rob <mesa...@google.com> said:

> On 23/05/2012 12:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22 16:38:36 -0700, Rob <mesa...@google.com> said:
>>
>>> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>>
>> The new AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR, is a very good value lens
>> which produces good results, and is a great improvement over the old
>> non-VR 70-300mm I have the new lens and have owned the old. Here are
>> some of the images it has produced for me with a D300s:
>> < http://db.tt/zyiTdFvy >
>> < http://db.tt/yzx7vAQi >
>> < http://db.tt/KXNMS1YS >
>> < http://db.tt/Aur6eA0g >
>> < http://db.tt/VhVhuttQ >
>>
>
>
>
> Like the images
>
> How would they go to a 24" wide print?? I have a Epson 7900 printer.

I would imagine that they would look just fine as a 24"x16".

I haven't tried prints with a 24" dimension. I have an Epson R2880
which along with standard paper sizes up to 13"x19", I could load with
a 13"x20' roll, which is great for panoramas, or large mosaics or
13"x19" "thick media" single sheet feed, but I have limited myself to
19"x13" max for now.
However I have considered getting some custom "LARGE" prints made by
MPix or a company of their ilk.

I have found that my favorite papers are several of the Red River Paper
offerings.
< http://www.redrivercatalog.com/ >

I have a particular liking to their 66 lb. Polar Pearl Metallic, which
with the R2880, produces quite amazing and jaw dropping prints.
<
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/66lb-polar-pearl-metallic-inkjet-photo-paper.html
>

They have a sample pack with a variety of their papers at 8.5x11. Well
worth exploring if you are looking for something different.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Rob]

A short history then!

Its not a matter of spending its the zoom range and weight.

I now use 24-120 f4 plus a 12-24 DX for the majority of my stuff. using
a D90 and D300. I only own one DX lens for wide angle stuff.

I have waited for so long for the D700 replacement which was on imminent
release for so long I've forgotten.

My requirements have been for a full frame camera as I like the feel of
the images. using some of my old manual Wide lenses, so much better
than the 12-24 DX will ever produce.

I have heaps of lenses including a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4.5 IF ED, in
the long range also use a 500 5.6 Mamiya lens with a Zork adaptor.


I hate carrying gear around nowdays, hence trying to consolidate what I
do carry.

My 80-200 f2.8 is heavy and slow in focusing.

the 70-300 would encompass my requirements taking boat races, and
lugging it around all day, weight wise.

We still get a better print from a digital image to digital print than
we ever had with film and a wet print.

[Savageduck]

My main reasons for using the 70-300mm VR, are economy of weight and economy.

>
> We still get a better print from a digital image to digital print than
> we ever had with film and a wet print.

I started limiting my bag. I hardly ever carry my 80-400mm.
My walk around lens on my D300s is the 18-200mm VRII.
Then I usually have ready access to the 70-300mm VR, my Tokina 11-16mm
f/2.8, and a 35mm f/2.0
Many times, depending on circumstances, I will just carry the D300S +
18-200mm with the 11-16mm in a vest pocket.

Anyway with that set up I can come up with this sort of variety;
Tokina 11-16mm:
< http://db.tt/lMYk7Ueh >

18-200mm VRII
< http://db.tt/L2aBL21r >
< http://db.tt/ThPnQ7UD >

and 70-300mm VR
< http://db.tt/9NxGQpX1 >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:
>A short history then!
>
>Its not a matter of spending its the zoom range and weight.
>
>I now use 24-120 f4 plus a 12-24 DX for the majority of my stuff. using
>a D90 and D300. I only own one DX lens for wide angle stuff.
>
>I have waited for so long for the D700 replacement which was on imminent
>release for so long I've forgotten.

There has never actually been any "imminent release"
expected for a D700 replacement. That's letting your
imagination get the best of you!

Of course, in reality the D800 is simply going to blow
your mind away! It will wipe clean all dreams based on
a D700 in about the first 30 minutes you use one.

>My requirements have been for a full frame camera as I like the feel of
>the images. using some of my old manual Wide lenses, so much better
>than the 12-24 DX will ever produce.

Okay, that's reasonable. (Heh, wait till you get a D800 and have
36MP of resolution to play with!)

>I have heaps of lenses including a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4.5 IF ED, in
>the long range also use a 500 5.6 Mamiya lens with a Zork adaptor.
>
>I hate carrying gear around nowdays, hence trying to consolidate what I
>do carry.
>
>My 80-200 f2.8 is heavy and slow in focusing.

A wonderful old lense, eh? The AF-S version and the
70-200mm VR were not enough to get me to switch, but the
70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is enough of a leap forward that it
was worth the price to set aside the 80-200mm. The
70-200mm is perhaps still heavier than you'd like, but
the AF is greased lightening, and the sharpness is
astounding.

>the 70-300 would encompass my requirements taking boat races, and
>lugging it around all day, weight wise.

For boat races, I don't quite understand your stated
need for fast AF and VR. Boat races don't need either!

Note that VR doesn't have any benefit at all for most
sports, simply because it corrects only for movement of
the camera, and not subject movement. With any
situation requiring a fast enough shutter speed to
freeze motion, VR should be turned off. Racing boats
won't be quite the same as shooting hockey, gymnastics
or basketball, but the shutter speeds required are still
high enough to make VR pretty much insignificant.

And racing boats don't really require super fast AF in
most cases (but might in some, if you are right up close
and want shots of the people as opposed to the boat).
Instead of fast AF use the camera's ability to track
moving subjects and predict where to focus prior to
shutter release, along with continuous focus mode.

Given that use (and granted that you may have other
needs that have not been mention), I'd go with the
70-200mm f/2.8G VRII and either a TC-17E or TC-20E, and
second choice would be an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D.

Either of those will outperform a 70-300mm significantly,
and take hugely better advantage of the D800's capability
for higher resolution. The 80-400mm will cost
significantly less but won't be as sharp in the 300-400mm
focal length range which of course the 70-300mm doesn't
even have. Yes, the 80-400 has slower AF, but that just
doesn't affect anything if the camera is configured
correctly.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>These assertions that Nikon-branded lenses were made by Tamron (or
>anybody else) is a red flag to me. How do you happen to know that, and
>can you cite a source? That such things happen is frequently denied
>pretty authoritatively.

Did you know that Leica cameras are made in Portugal? Cameras that
are around 99% complete are sent to Germany for final testing,
adjustment and application of the 'red dot' so they can be claimed to
be "Made in Germany". But the vast majority of the work was done in
Portugal.

My point is that things are not always what they appear to be. Japan
has a very long tradition of outsourcing components, assemblies and
entire manufacture. There are thousands of small, medium and large
Japanese companies making these items, a few of which are well known
outside Japan such as Kino Precision, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron. But
the fact that their input is anywhere up to 100% of the finished
product is always denied by camera manufacturers who obviously wish to
preserve the value of their brand.

To help preserve the big names, the subcontractors set up companies
that either bear the name of the camera brand, or include some equity
from the big name company, or both. A classic example of this is the
Kyocera-owned company that was called "Contax" and made "Carl Zeiss"
lenses. A current example is Cosina, who make "Carl Zeiss" lenses for
SLR and rangefinder cameras in parallel with the Voigtländer range.

In the past, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron have made Nikon lenses. But
don't ever expect Nikon to admit that. ;-)

[Bruce]

Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:

>I have waited for so long for the D700 replacement which was on imminent
>release for so long I've forgotten.

The D700 replacement was only "on imminent release" if you believed
the rumour mill. As far as Nikon is concerned, there has not been any
suggestion of a D700 replacement. There isn't one even now, and Nikon
has been careful to point out that neither the D800 nor the D800E are
D700 replacements.

Even the imminent D600 (that's a rumour!) may not replace the D700.

[Stuffed Crust]

Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Except in this case the OP explicitly specified the
> need for VR and fast AF. I thought it was going a bit
> out on a limb to talk about the 80-400mm, but the
> 80-200mm borders on off topic!

I paid about 10% more for my secondhand 80-200/2.8D (push-pull) than I
paid for the 70-300VR new. They both focus at roughly the same speed
(takes about the same amount of time to wind through the full focus
range on my D300s) and IMO the extra two stops of light gathering trumps
the "two stop" benefit of VR, especially when you consider that VR does
nothing for moving subjects.

Granted, the 80-200 weighs twice as much, but my 70-300VR has been in
for repair twice now. It's not a particularly robust lens..

[Rob]

The 7900 is a whole new kettle of fish, much, much more detail in the
prints than the 2880. You would be surprised. Even has more shadow
detail than the 7850. I have the same print processed on the 2880 as an
A3+ and 7900 bit bigger to compare. I would like to see what the results
are off the new 3000.

I have been using Epsons Cold Press natural which is a bloody nice
paper. Also do a few canvas prints with wraps.

For big prints love a matt paper.

[Rob]

I took the D800 as a replacement of the D700 being a FX prosumer camera.
the D700 has finished production tho.

[RichA]

On May 23, 4:01 pm, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 11:04 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net>  wrote:

> >> On 5/23/2012 4:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> >>> Rob<mesam...@google.com>   wrote:
> >>>> Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.
>
> >>>> Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.
>
> >>>> Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.
>
> >>> It is a consumer grade lens.  It is cheap, and for
> >>> example has no tripod mount.  It's a good buy for the price.
> >>> It is sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, but frankly if that is
> >>> indeed the range you want even the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is
> >>> better, and the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is far better, even with
> >>> a 1.4x teleconverter (plus it works with a 2x TC too).
>
> >>> If you need a sharp lens from 200mm to 300mm, this is not it.
>
> >>> The only real advantage of this lens is the price tag.
>

> >>> Seehttp://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htmfor a reliable review.

I had one. Produced kind of drab-looking images. The lens now costs
something like $1700 which is too much for its performance. I figure
if Nikon upgrades it, the price will jump to $2000+. I compared it
against a 70-200mm f2.8 (1st version) and a 1.5x converter and the
more expensive combo worked better, at 300mm. The good thing is, you
can sometimes get the 80-400mm used for about $1000.00. Build quality
is good, midway between the consumer glass and the FX stuff. Since
most people would likely want it for the long end, an older 400mm f5.6
prime would be a better choice, but it won't have VR.

[Bruce]

You can choose to take it however you wish.

>the D700 has finished production tho.

Not yet, it hasn't.

[nospam]

In article <pe2rr7dku04lprb2g...@4ax.com>,

<Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> I have the older 50-500 non VR Sigma lens, and I've taken some good pic's with
> it, but I should have bought the 150-500... once you see how big this lens
> really is you will only want to mount it when you want long range! I'd bet
> the 150-500 is better quality than the 50-500.

no it isn't and it's a lot less reliable too. check out lensrentals.com
for specifics.

> I have an old 70-300 non VR Nikon, and I'm fairly happy with it so I imagine
> the
> new 70-300 will be better,

the 70-300vr is *much* better. nikon made two 70-300 non-vr lenses. the
cheap one is junk and the other one is decent but not as good as the vr
version.

> For wide range I use the new Nikon 28-300 but it's quite distorted... you will
> need lens correction in ACR! It also suffers from short range focus diminished
> mm's. unlike the other lenses I mentioned, but it's an OK snapshot lens.

that is a wide range, and it brings compromises.

[nospam]

In article <ylfk396q...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet

<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> > The original AF 70-210mm f/4 was quite good but too expensive to make,
> > so it was replaced with the cheap and nasty 70-210mm f/4-5.6 which
> > inexplicably acquired a stellar reputation on the basis of one good
> > review. The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 was an excellent performer but was too
> > expensive, so was replaced, initially with the much cheaper 70-300mm
> > f/4-5.6 ED and later with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Both were made by
> > Tamron whose own version was better than both Nikkors with a price
> > nearer the cheaper Nikon G version.
>
> These assertions that Nikon-branded lenses were made by Tamron (or
> anybody else) is a red flag to me. How do you happen to know that, and
> can you cite a source? That such things happen is frequently denied
> pretty authoritatively.

people keep claiming it but nobody has ever cited a source.

> On the other hand, if one *is* looking at the consumer-grade lenses,
> then I very much agree that looking at the major third-party
> manufacturers is a VERY good idea in general, regardless of who actually
> makes the Nikon-branded lenses.

definitely.

[nospam]

In article <lp0sr755se2doldm5...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the past, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron have made Nikon lenses. But
> don't ever expect Nikon to admit that. ;-)

prove it.

and even if they did, it's to nikon's specs, so it doesn't actually
matter.

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

If you don't make a direct comparison of pictures you can't always see the
distortion, it has barrel distortion that will show up in cityscapes for
example. I like the range for carrying around as a tourist - not for high
quality!

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:42:41 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <pe2rr7dku04lprb2g...@4ax.com>,
><Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>> I have the older 50-500 non VR Sigma lens, and I've taken some good pic's with
>> it, but I should have bought the 150-500... once you see how big this lens
>> really is you will only want to mount it when you want long range! I'd bet
>> the 150-500 is better quality than the 50-500.
>
>no it isn't and it's a lot less reliable too. check out lensrentals.com
>for specifics.

Really? I was just 'supposin' because of it's decreased range.

>> I have an old 70-300 non VR Nikon, and I'm fairly happy with it so I imagine
>> the
>> new 70-300 will be better,
>
>the 70-300vr is *much* better. nikon made two 70-300 non-vr lenses. the
>cheap one is junk and the other one is decent but not as good as the vr
>version.

I'm saving for the 70-200 2.8 G VR2 and a TC-20 E iii so I won't worry about it!

>> For wide range I use the new Nikon 28-300 but it's quite distorted... you will
>> need lens correction in ACR! It also suffers from short range focus diminished
>> mm's. unlike the other lenses I mentioned, but it's an OK snapshot lens.
>
>that is a wide range, and it brings compromises.

Nothing ACR can't fix! (except maybe focus...)

[nospam]

In article <2dvsr7tucq3gl3rs1...@4ax.com>,

<Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> >> I have the older 50-500 non VR Sigma lens, and I've taken some good pic's
> >> with it, but I should have bought the 150-500... once you see how big this lens
> >> really is you will only want to mount it when you want long range! I'd bet
> >> the 150-500 is better quality than the 50-500.
> >
> >no it isn't and it's a lot less reliable too. check out lensrentals.com
> >for specifics.
>
> Really? I was just 'supposin' because of it's decreased range.

really. they no longer carry the sigma 120-400 and 150-500 (same lens,
actually) because they were too unreliable, with a 45% failure rate.

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

Thanks, now I'm glad I got the 50-500!

[Mike Benveniste]

On 5/23/2012 9:37 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> These assertions that Nikon-branded lenses were made by Tamron (or
> anybody else) is a red flag to me. How do you happen to know that, and
> can you cite a source? That such things happen is frequently denied
> pretty authoritatively.

Asking "Bruce" for sources is a waste of electrons.

What is known is that the physical layout and specifications of the
Nikon 70-300mm f/4~5.6 lenses (including element placement and size)
were virtually identical to that of a contemporaneous Tamron. The
Tamron had one small "LD" element towards the rear of the lens, the
Nikon ED version had it's one ED element in the same spot.

When I asked, Nikon explicitly stated that the 70-300mm ED was made
in a Nikon manufacturing facility. The Tamron 14mm f/2.8 and the Nikon
14mm f/2.8D lens were also extremely similar physically. Trying to
unravel keiretsu relationships among Japanese companies is beyond my
research abilities, but I suspect these lens designs came out of some
sort of joint R&D project.

The Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 VR was introduced in 2006. Tamron did
not introduce a similar lens until 2010. Both are 17-element, 12-group
designs. The Nikon boasts two ED elements -- the Tamron boasts one
XLD and one LD element. The lens construction diagrams shown at
each companies main website show slightly different placement of the
interior elements but that may just be due to a different focus point.
Making comparisons based on MTF charts from different sources is always
suspect, but at 30 lp/mm the charts show quite different "spreads"
between the sagittal and meridional traces.

Here's a shot and 100% crop using a D800 and 70-300mm VR on a travel
tripod. No, the lens doesn't get the most out of a D800, but in my
opinion it's a good choice for a hiking or tourism telezoom.

http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/library.jpg
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/pub.jpg

--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>These assertions that Nikon-branded lenses were made by Tamron (or
>>anybody else) is a red flag to me. How do you happen to know that, and
>>can you cite a source? That such things happen is frequently denied
>>pretty authoritatively.
>
>
> Did you know that Leica cameras are made in Portugal? Cameras that
> are around 99% complete are sent to Germany for final testing,
> adjustment and application of the 'red dot' so they can be claimed to
> be "Made in Germany". But the vast majority of the work was done in
> Portugal.

What I don't get is why I would care.

> My point is that things are not always what they appear to be. Japan
> has a very long tradition of outsourcing components, assemblies and
> entire manufacture. There are thousands of small, medium and large
> Japanese companies making these items, a few of which are well known
> outside Japan such as Kino Precision, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron. But
> the fact that their input is anywhere up to 100% of the finished
> product is always denied by camera manufacturers who obviously wish to
> preserve the value of their brand.
>
> To help preserve the big names, the subcontractors set up companies
> that either bear the name of the camera brand, or include some equity
> from the big name company, or both. A classic example of this is the
> Kyocera-owned company that was called "Contax" and made "Carl Zeiss"
> lenses. A current example is Cosina, who make "Carl Zeiss" lenses for
> SLR and rangefinder cameras in parallel with the Voigtländer range.
>
> In the past, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron have made Nikon lenses. But
> don't ever expect Nikon to admit that. ;-)

Or anybody to be able to show it's true.

[Bruce]

No-one needs to "show" it is true because it is very widely known
across the industry.

The Nikon users who buy pro quality Nikon glass don't need to worry
because their lenses were assembled in a Nikon-owned factory.

The people who buy and use the cheap and nasty consumer-grade
Nikon-branded lenses that are made by contractors don't care. What
matters to them is the Nikon badge which sets their lens apart from
one with a Cosina, Tokina or Tamron badge. Who actually made the lens
is of no concern. It's a "Nikkor" because it says so on the lens and
that is all that matters to them.

However, there are some widely known examples of camera brand
equipment being revealed to be made by contractors. I remember long
ago calling Nikon UK's SLR Product Manager to enquire when Nikon UK
would be offering the FE10 35mm SLR. They already offered the FM10
but I wanted a replacement for my FE2, with aperture priority AE.

The man from Nikon UK told me that the FE10 would not be imported
because it wasn't of high enough quality. When I expressed surprise
that any Nikon product wasn't considered of sufficiently high quality
to sell in the UK, and pressed him for an answer, he reluctantly
admitted that it was not made by Nikon, but by a contractor.

It turns out that both the FM10 and FE10 were versions of the Cosina
CT1. The FM10 was reasonably reliable and sold well. The FE10 was
chronically unreliable so was not imported. I don't think either was
ever officially imported to the USA. There were also two "Nikkor" kit
lenses made by Cosina for these cameras, a 35-70mm f/3.5-4.8 (which
bore a close external resemblance to the discontinued AIS Nikkor
35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 but was a lousy performer) and a 70-210mm.

All this is so widely known that it appears on Wikipedia. But did
Nikon Japan ever officially admit it? If they did, it was only
because Cosina's Mr Kobayashi wanted it to be known that Cosina
manufactured camera bodies and/or lenses for Canon, Nikon, Pentax,
Olympus and Vivitar and told everyone who would listen. ;-)

It is very well known that Cosina made 100mm f/3.5 macro lenses for
Pentax and Canon plus SLR bodies for Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Konica and
Yashica over the years.

In the 1970s/80s there was constant pressure to produce ever cheaper
SLR cameras and lenses. The Nikon Series E lenses were a lower cost
range than the all-metal Nikkors but still had good performance. They
were designed by Nikon but entirely manufactured by contractors. Some
of them were so good that their optical design was later used in "full
Nikkors", notably the 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 70-210mm f/4. It
isn't clear which contractors made them; Tokina and/or Cosina are the
most likely but Kino Precision may also have been involved. Several
of the design team subsequently left Nikon and joined Tokina where
they produced some outstanding designs.

At the time, every manufacturer was making its own "kit" lenses and
one particular contractor saw an opportunity to lover costs by making
one basic design in huge numbers and customising it to each
manufacturer's mount. The result was an extremely cheap 35-70mm lens.
Later, a 35-80mm was made, and this became quite controversial because
of its poor optical performance. There were thousands of complaints
made in the UK to the manufacturers and also to photo magazines.

The magazine "Amateur Photographer" fearlessly took these complaints
to the manufacturers. AP was fearless because, in those days, most of
its advertising revenue came from sellers of used equipment, so it was
nowhere near as dependent on advertising by manufacturers as it is
now.

It had already been discovered by many repair technicians that these
35-80mm lenses shared common DNA, with identical optical and basic
mechanical designs. It didn't take long for "Amateur Photographer" to
establish that all the lenses came from one factory. They were all
made by Tamron.

Did these camera brand manufacturers ever explicitly admit to this? Or
did they explicitly and authoritatively deny it, like Nikon does now?

Why do you think almost every manufacturer of APS-C DSLRs and some
mirrorless cameras offers 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses with near-identical
optics? Who do you think makes these lenses? Tamron.

But will Nikon or the other camera brands ever admit it,
authoritatively or otherwise?

Please feel free to remain in your Nikon cocoon, protected from the
real world by soothing Nikon press releases and authoritative denials.

;-)

[nospam]

In article <avpur75t75hbjf4vt...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> In the past, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron have made Nikon lenses. But
> >> don't ever expect Nikon to admit that. ;-)
> >
> >Or anybody to be able to show it's true.
>
> No-one needs to "show" it is true because it is very widely known
> across the industry.

yet nobody can provide any proof. strange.

> The Nikon users who buy pro quality Nikon glass don't need to worry
> because their lenses were assembled in a Nikon-owned factory.
>
> The people who buy and use the cheap and nasty consumer-grade
> Nikon-branded lenses that are made by contractors don't care. What
> matters to them is the Nikon badge which sets their lens apart from
> one with a Cosina, Tokina or Tamron badge. Who actually made the lens
> is of no concern. It's a "Nikkor" because it says so on the lens and
> that is all that matters to them.

if it says nikkor then it's made to higher specs than something that
cosina or whatever, assuming it's made by someone else, that is.

> All this is so widely known that it appears on Wikipedia.

*that* is your proof?? seriously?

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <avpur75t75hbjf4vt...@4ax.com>, Bruce

>> >> In the past, Cosina, Tokina and Tamron have made Nikon lenses. But
>> >> don't ever expect Nikon to admit that. ;-)

>> >Or anybody to be able to show it's true.

>> No-one needs to "show" it is true because it is very widely known
>> across the industry.

> yet nobody can provide any proof. strange.

Bruce says it, ain't that enough proof?

>> All this is so widely known that it appears on Wikipedia.

> *that* is your proof?? seriously?

Actually, the proof is that it's being talked about in Usenet.
And Bruce probably added it to Wikipedia.

-Wolfgang