Nikon Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G

[Jordan Compte]

alright, so time for me to start looking for a decent lens for surf and this is good enough for now

so I've been looking around and what I have found is these two

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-n..._type=1&page=4

and

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-n..._type=1&page=5

what is making the price difference so high, and which one would you buy out of the two?

I'm thinking because the second one is the new model, better build, better glass therefore it's $600 more?

[arthurking83]

G'day Jordan
(I edited your post to fix the first 70-300G link)

Read the lens naming nomenclature more thoroughly too!

The first one is a link to the old, original 70-300 G lens, non VR and an average performing lens at best.. according to all(the limited) samples and reviews/tests I've seen of it.

The second link is to the fantastic value for money 70-300VR lens which rivals many pro glass for quality of image. Fair enough it's slow at the tele end!.. but that;s what you pay for! sharpness and contrast are great on this lens, and I was seriously considering getting one(not exactly for my own use) but have decided on a more all rounder 18-2xxmm lens instead, as my needs are more specific.
I found one here in Melb for mid$700's in Elizabeth st, and almost laid out the moola for it, there and then, but my son hates changing lenses(70mm wil be too long for him in many situations!... damned! coz I really wanted him to have one

As for the $100 70-300mmG lens.. save your $100!!

[Jordan Compte]

alright, thanks for the help Arthur, I did read the title of each, but I was just presuming the $700 one is because it is the newer, better build, better glassed one haha, thanks again

[arthurking83]

Yep you got it one!!.. plus add the VR.
The way I see it, I need VR for any focal length 105mm or more!

makes for a very nice experience having image stabilisation.

other cheaper options include the 55-200VR as well, another nice tele zoom from Nikon too at approx $350-ish.

ps. my son is only 8! .. he's very careful and purposeful when it comes to handling my camera gear. I'd rather spend only $350 on his new lens, but the longer I wait, the more trust I seem to place in him, and spending $800-ish on his new bit of gear won't end up becoming money down the drain .. as long as his cousins are kept well away!

[Machew]

Hi Jordan,
having owned the AF-S 70-300VR lens before I can tell you it's a great performer for the money. There are two points to make about the lens though, Arthur has already pointed out the average aperture speed at the telephoto end (which you may find to be annoying) and the other, more important issue is that it's quite soft at 300mm. Up to 200mm it's impressively sharp (at 70mm it's outstanding) but shooting at F5.6 at 300mm it softens up and the edges are very soft. You can step down to F8 (which helps) but that might not suit surf photography much.
Having said that though, I can't think of a better telephoto lens with it's versatility and affordability.
If you can afford to stretch your budget further then perhaps look at the Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4. I haven't used it personally but I've seen it perform very well in reviews. It is a constant F4 and combined with a Sigma 1.4x converter will give you the same image quality as the Nikkor at 300mm but at a much further 420mm at F5.6.

[gw.toad]

i have tried the g version, its a little underrated and takes some fine images

I bought myself a second hand [$700.00] nikon ED 300 f4 prime for taking surfing and other sporting events

i use it on a tripod and find it's very sharp used this way...

i have a tamron x2 teleconverter i use with it [not as sharp with it]

here is a surfing shot taken with the prime

gw.toad

[clcollins]

I would not recommend the G lens - I have it, and it is very slow and takes very grainy images - it feels quite plasticy in your hands and is very lightweight.

GW toad is talking about a prime lens (no zoom) so you can't really compare the two. Generally the prime lenses are better than zooms (of a comparable price) as they are only concentrating on getting one length right.

Don't get me wrong, I took some great photos in South America with the 70-300G, but all in all it is a fairly low quality lens and if your going to buy one (mine came as part of the kit with the D70s) I would recommend against it and go for something that is higher quality.

We just bought the 70-200VR and it is AMAZING! (but not cheap at all)

[Jordan Compte]

yeahh true, thanks for your help again, I will be purchasing a 300 f/4 eventually though I was going to purchase the 70-300 to replace my 28-200 (hopefully sell it) and to use it for surf photography at this current time

but it all comes down to money, I've got plans to get other gear first so I was just asking around etc.

but I'm most likely going to purchase a 300 f/4 brand new and then get a teleconverter on that as well

[IK-Labs]

but I'm most likely going to purchase a 300 f/4 brand new and then get a teleconverter on that as well

If you're on a budget,

Do.
Not.
Buy.
New.

The 300/4 AF-S retails for ~$1300 new... it's a lens that's been around since the turn of the century; there are a few of them around - a well-taken-care-of used one will come up soon enough.

[gw.toad]

i know a lot of people don't have a lot of respect ken rockwell...he is pretty much spot on with his views on the 300 ed...link below

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3004af.htm

i haven't used the newer version 300 af-s...i've saw images taken with it that look ok...link below

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f4afs.htm

hope this helps your selection

gw.toad

[Tadlost]

Hi Jordan,
I found the lens at https://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au...?idProduct=961
$558.00 Aus plus freight I thought this was a good deal.
Tad.

[old dog]

definitely get the VR version. Great value for money. I use mine a lot.

[quangsta]

I've used the 70-300mm vr quite a good lens especially for its size and price. dont think you can go wrong there.