Hi, Sorry to bug everyone with this question but I need a few oppinions with getting a new lens. The two in question are the newer 70-300mm AF ED f/4.0-5.6 or the late '80s 70-210mm constant f/4.0 one. I understand that the older lens is sharper than the new one. However, the 70-210 lacks the extra length that the 70-300 does. This can be remedied by using a TC-14 teleconverter though it will increase the f-stop to about 5.6 I think. Will the teleconverter degrade the quality of the photo significantly? The 70-210 also has a slower AF speed compared to the 70-300 and the AF ring is right at the end of the zoom barrel(70-210). I am planning to take some candid photos of people and some of nature. I do take a couple of sports(soccer mainly) scenes too. I cannot afford the 80-200mm f/2.8 or any in that class, so it boils down to just these two. I appreciate the convenience of the 70-300 lens as I don't have to fiddle with a teleconverter. I understand from a couple of reviews that the 70-300 is a little soft in the 200-300 range. Is this due to camera shake? Will the use of a tripod help this? By the way, I also have a Nikkor 28-105mm lens as well. I am pretty happy with the result of this lens. How does the 70-300 and the 70-210 compare to this both in optical quality and in built?

-- Gerald H Ling (gling@ecs.umass.edu), April 06, 2001

Answers

Hi Gerald,

I have the 70-300mm ED lens which I use on a secondhand F5. It is certainly a good lens -- very much a partner to the 28-105mm -- but I too have found it to be a bit soft at longer focal lengths. I'm very happy to use while I save up for my first choice of several prime lenses. It's a mid-range product, and seems to be markedly better than the cheaper consumer lenses (such as the same focal length 70-300mm Series G). On the other hand, from all I have seen, the 80-200mm is better optically, better built, heavier, and more expensive. Sigh.

I know the 70-210mm only by repute as being typical of the very earliest AF lenses, and therefore fiercely controversial among Nikon loyalists -- plastic with a narrow manual-focus ring. The cult lens in this series was the AF 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 (which succeeded the 70-210mm and preceded the 70-300mm ED), with probably the strongest build of the three, though without the ED glass of the latest version.

Another alternative -- and one of the all-time cult lenses -- is the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E (the second version, with a chrome mounting ring). It's manual focus, it has consumer build quality and a tendency for zoom creep ... but its combination of quite remarkable optics and light weight outweighs these easily for its many enthusiasts.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), April 07, 2001.

I've used the 75-300 & the 70-210/4. The 70-210 is really a pretty good lens. I delivered a series of Tech Pan portraits made with it & an 85/1.8 and the negatives weren't so very different that I had to compensate for the zoom in the darkroom.

The 75-300 is pretty poor out at 300, and I'd assume the rest of the x-300 zooms are too. If you need a 300 but not the speed, look for a 300/4.5.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), April 08, 2001.

I went out of my way to find one of the constant aperture f/4 70-210 AF zooms, and haven't regretted it one bit. It's the equal of the well-reputed 80-200 f/4 manual focus Nikkor within the same focal length constraints. In fact, it's optically the same construction as the series 'E' 70-210 f/4, but with a better build quality, despite having a polycarbonate body.
The separate zoom and focus actions make for really positive handling qualities too.
IMHO, 210 mm is about the limit for handholding, and you're probably better off not being tempted to use 300mm without a tripod.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 09, 2001.

If you are very serious about photography 70 - 300 ED will not make you happy. Lens has no tripod mount ( Had to make my own ) and at any focal lenght over 180 mm .... no comments. Sigma is the answer at this price range.

-- Alois Lazecky (alois_lazecky@pch.gc.ca), April 25, 2001.

Also, if you are planning to use the lens handheld, the 70-210 f/4 does not extend while zooming. This makes a big difference for me, as it improves the handling tremendously. I have had great success with this lens shooting high school baseball this spring. My only complaints about the lens are the focus ring, which is impossible to use, and the autofocusing speed. But the advantages of this lens, (including the brighter viewfinder versus f/5.6) made me choose the older lens over the others.

-- Brian Bridges (brianb@rutherford.k12.nc.us), May 02, 2001.

Buyer beware!! I have tried to find a GOOD 70-210- F4 without success. By reputation it is a very desirable lens; much better than the 70-300 which is possibly made by Tamron! I would suggest that you purchase one locally & try it out. Do NOT purchase from the net unless you can return it. The one I have tried,at a local camera store, would not focus at infinity with my F100. It seems that auto focus lenses are much more fragile than manual focus lenses so good examples are harder to find.

-- Melvin Bramley (bramley@nanaimo.ark.com), May 23, 2001.

In response to question on the soft definition on 300mm end of 70- 300ed/75-300 AF nikkors, based on existing experience, I would suggest an re-evaluation on lens-subject distance. Basically, lens resolution will decrease when the subject-lens distance increases. For focal range 200-300mm for both the two versions, the subject-lens distance should not exceed 100 yards/ft, which means for an object at the length of 1 feet, the subject-lens distance should not exceed 100 yard. Within this distance, the MTF at the 300mm end will still fall into 64-66 pl. Here is a simple test. As you focus to infinity, which will draw all the light in in paraell direction, you can then look for objects in different distances. You will find within certain distance, the subjects are clear and no fuzzy contours. However, after a certain distance, all things become un-clear. Even though the adjustment on aperature will change the depth of the field, this rule will still be applied. A tripod would be useful in keeping the setup steady, but sorry, not on this two. The newer ED version does not have a tripod and the tripod on old 75-300 is too weak to hold the whole set. After plus the wind and enviroment effects, a tripod is no good here. Eventhough 200-300mm focal length can be taken as "telephoto" already, but a lens is still not a telescope and can really "see" as clear as you can see through a regular binocular. So, get as close as possible to your subject would be the best solution of all.

-- Thomas C.C. Tseng (r134aa@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.

Regards to byer beware on the above post. I finally found a good example of the 70-210 F4. It is one of the best purchases I have ever made. A brilliant lens.The wait was well worth it.

-- Melvin (bramley@nanaimo.ark.com), May 11, 2002.

Hi Melvin, Congratulations for your "new" 4/70-210. Is the lens sharp, how is the contrast, how fast is the AF????? Is it sharper than the 4-5,6/70-210 ???

I also think about buying one.

Beste regards

aki

-- aki (aki@surfcaster.de), May 12, 2002.

Thanks to this post, and other sites , I decided to buy AF 70-210 f/4 over AF70-210 4-5.6D. I found my on ebay from original owner in 9+ condition paid 199, and will follow with brief test results soon.

Thanks,

-- pavel b. (netbonzo@hotmail.com), May 26, 2002.