I have looked at this tele-lens, and just wondering how much better the ED-version is than the cheaper G-version. Is it worth the extra money to go for the ED?
I will mainly use it for wildlife, and a little sport in summer-time.
i would spring for the ED. if you want to save a few bucks, buy Sigma's high-end, the APO version. optically speaking, the sigma is just as good as the nikon ED, and it's less expensive. build quality might not be quite as good though.
Hay, my 70-300 ED is much better than the standard "G".
After extensive lens test my 70-300G went back, and sold my 100-300F4 Sigma. Seems that all Sigma lenses tested against Nikon do funny things.
Soft focus, exposure variations, and funny colors. Lens to lens. If I put on 5 Nikon lenses, my exposures, color and focus are so consistent I cannot tell which les was used for the shoot.
the 70-300 ED is almost as good as the 80-400VR.
That said, I do like my 12-24 Tokina except for the CA @ 12mm
optically speaking, the sigma is just as good as the nikon ed
no. the sigma is better, optically speaking. at one time, i had access to both (all three, actually), and came up with the order i posted above with extensive testing.
Another vote for the Sigma, I had the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II (the version before the DG) and the pictures that I get are nearly as sharp as my 70-200 VR. Maybe I had a good copy of the Sigma, maybe I have a bad copy of the 70-200 VR, but I really regret selling that lens.
rafadavidc wrote:
no. the sigma is better, optically speaking. at one time, i had access to both (all three, actually), and came up with the order i posted above with extensive testing.
There is no reason to disbelieve you about the quality of images produced by your copies of the lenses. But just because your copies had that order of optical quality does not necessarily mean one can categorically conclude that as a general truth. You have your opinion and so does the other guy.
Net-net, to the original poster, you will be amazed to see some of the results people have gotten with the el-cheapo 70-300G. Try it out to see for yourself if you like it or not. If you don't like it, you can always return. Most important thing about the 70-300G is that its resale value is extremely good. Push comes to shove, you can always eBay it.
I had the 70-300G until I was ready to upgrade. I have taken many good images with it. This is just one sample. I have a few more in my gallery.
But I am still not sure, because almost everyone of you have different views on which one to buy, so I think I will spend a little more time before I decide.
Last week I sold my 70-300 ed, I have to tell you that I was pleased with it. It is a great lens and I think you wont regret. Never use before a Sigma so I canīt help you with that.
I had the Sigma APO Macro version (red ring) when I was using Canon and it was quite sharp up to around 200 or more but the zoom / focus rings are not smooth and I didn`t care for the rough bokeh.However it was only $170.00 at the time and served the purpose.
Now, I`ve never been a brand snob but since I came over to Nikon I`ve discovered that many of Nikon consumer lenses are indeed so much better than the price would indicate and consquently I see little or no reason to not opt for the Nikon version , maybe even a used one. These Nikon lenses work so good on a Nikon body.
tomb18 wrote:
I'd go for the ED version. I do find however, that the lens does not perform as well at infinity but is great for closer shots. Here's an example
Nice shot. Did you do any PP to get those feathers so white?
For the original poster, rumor has it Nikon will introduce a new 70-300 at PMA in a couple weeks. I have no idea on how it will spec out, let alone show up altogether, but it may impact prices on other Nikon 70-300 lenses.
I had both G and ED at some point. If you are deciding between only these 2, pick the ED by all means. However, if you want to consider other options, consider the old nikkor 75-300 or Tamron 70-300. The tamron is almost equal to the ED for just half the price. (Optically it is close to ED and build wise it is close to G )
regards,
-Beji
I have the ED version for sale if you are interested. I would definately go with the ED over the G version. I have the G version of a different lens and it sucks.
Kari Post wrote:
I have the G version of a different lens and it sucks.
What is the co-relation between this other G-version and the 70-300 G vs ED? If you meant to say, all G lenses suck, then I point out, your own 70-200VR is also a G lens, which means nothing other than the fact that the lens does not have aperture ring. Now, it is a different matter than the 70-300G is inferior to 70-300ED. By how much, no one clearly knows.
)