Kind'a of minor note but I just grabbed a 70-300 lens used. I thought that "what the heck" I need some reach until I can save up for the better lenses and I'm seriously considering the D50 in a few months for my daughter to learn with and so she can inherit this lens. Oh, and there's the walk-around factor too.
Well in my former life as a canon guy I would have never considered a bottom of the heap lens like this as I didn't like lenses with permanent petroleum jelly on the front that you couldn't wipe off but would see in every frame.
I got sold by you guys telling me that the nikon stuff is not like that and got to see some pretty fine examples of birds shot with this ... that made me go "wow! ... not bad!". (thanks Mark!)
So I took the plunge. I hope you guys were right about this one. I'm trusting you! ... and thanks for the advice and opening up of my experience this virtual way.
Hard to believe I just ordered one. Well not hard to believe that I would get this one after seeing the pictures it can put out ... but the price was. $129. Doesn't get any better than that.
Pavel, there used to be a guy on this forum that had that lens (Stanley), and he had some really super shots with it. He used to brag about his 'cheap' Nikon lenses and what he could get out of them. And like you said, for the price.......
- Remember it's 300mm! So many people forget that (I did!) because it's so light weight and small and they skip everything they know about long, slow lens technique. It feels like a little toy, so it will fool you.
- At the long end, avoid wide open. Take it down a stop or two and it will sing for you.
As I said before, it isn't going to compete with the good stuff - but it will serve you well if you remember its limitations. In the 70-200 range at f8+, I'll put the image quality up against my 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor.
A friend of mine is a stringer for the local big newspaper... and she was showing me some images at a NASCAR race that she took with it. The Nikon rep was at the race making fun of her, as he didn't believe she was going to get any keepers with it. She said "watch me".
The images were sharp, colorful, contrasty and just plain good, She used her D2X, and the prints I saw were only 4"x 6"... but impressive, nonetheless.
It's surprising how many inexpensive Nikkors, used within their respective limits, can produce stellar images.
I'm still trying to figure out who said you need expensive gear to take good pics. I always thought pics had a lot more to do with the person pushing the button than the gear. Wish I still had the pinhole camera I made out of an oatmeal box in school. That thing would sing at it's one and only aperature............I think it was like F/256 or something. Man those were some nice pics.......
All I can say to the hummingbird images is WOW. From the sig, I'd say those were from the 70-300mm ED ($299). I have the $129 G and wish I'd spent more. My logic was this was a temp fix until I could afford better glass but I regret it. The lens produces good images if you avoid extreme stops and pull back slightly from full 300mm. My biggest gripe is the AF is so slow if I had hair I would pull it out. The ED is probably the same but it has Manual focus option which I miss greatly. For landscapes, the manual would be fine and give more control.
Still not a bad lens for a hundred bucks and likewise will pass to my daughter one day.
They were in fact from the 70-300ED. I remember when he first posted those images here. Check out the rest of the stuff on his site - complete with exif data.
Just to let you know its more than just the aperture ring thats different in the two lenses built on the 70-300 platform The 70-200G vs the 70-300 ED. We carried both in the store. I shot with both and the ED version had the advantage. It felt heavier, had manual, firmer in the controls, just more Nikon feel and a lot easier on the back than my 70-200 VR and a joy to use with FLASH in manual modes. Best price on them was 264.00 and thats 120 more than the G series. To me it was money well spent.