Nikkor lenses

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Motorcyclesaur, Jul 25, 2003.

  1. Hi everyone,

    I need some advice regarding the range of Nikkor lenses. In particular, I
    would like to know what optical performance difference there is between the
    G class and the D class with ED lenses, i.e. how do they compare for
    brightness, sharpness of the image, etc.?

    The lenses that I am looking at are the zoom 28-100 G, the 28-105 D, the
    70-300G, and the 70-300 D ED.

    Can anyone give me an opinion or address me to a website where all this is
    explained?

    Thank you for your time.

    M.
     
    Motorcyclesaur, Jul 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Motorcyclesaur

    Matt Clara Guest

    You can't compare G to D, at least not in terms of optical quality or
    robustness of build. For that, you have to compare on a lens by lens basis.
    G means that the lens has no aperture ring and thus, if you care to control
    your aperture, can only be used on newer Nikon cameras such as the N80,
    F100, F5, D100, and probably a couple of others I'm not aware of.

    D means that it has the Distance chip in it. This feeds the distance of the
    subject to the camera (roughly). This is most beneficial in some flash
    situations. All G lenses are also D lenses.

    ED means the lens incorporates Nikon's Extra low Dispersion glass. Keeps
    light from scattering and ideally provides for sharp, contrasty images.
     
    Matt Clara, Jul 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Motorcyclesaur

    EDGY01 Guest

    << I need some advice regarding the range of Nikkor lenses. In particular, I
    would like to know what optical performance difference there is between the
    G class and the D class with ED lenses, i.e. how do they compare for
    brightness, sharpness of the image, etc.?

    The lenses that I am looking at are the zoom 28-100 G, the 28-105 D, the
    70-300G, and the 70-300 D ED.

    Can anyone give me an opinion or address me to a website where all this is
    explained?

    G lenses are limited to certain bodies only. Mostly the more automated modern
    bodies, with command dials to handle changing apertures with a wheel versus on
    the lens itself. (The G drops the aperture ring entirely). The ED glass
    equipped lenses are mostly a factor for telephoto applications. ED allows the
    entire spectrum of the image to focus at the same plane,--impossible with
    conventional glass,--and a bigger deal with the longer focal lengths,--above
    180mm.

    Dan Lindsay
    Santa Barbara
     
    EDGY01, Jul 26, 2003
    #3
  4. Motorcyclesaur

    T P Guest


    It is impossible to generalise about G lenses, because they include
    some of the best *and* the worst lenses available today. The two you
    have chosen for comparison are among the worst.

    They are very cheaply made so they can sell at very low prices,
    competing with third party junk lenses. However there are some
    outstanding G Nikkors further up the price range.

    The 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor is an extremely good lens for the
    money and is capable of producing superb results in the right hands.
    The 28-100mm G is a consumer lens built to a very low price point and
    is unlikely ever to produce results on a par with the 28-105mm.

    The 70-300mm G is also a very cheap lens and you should not expect
    great things of it. The 70-300mm D ED is much better and produces
    sharp results from 70-200mm, especially when stopped down. However it
    gets increasingly unsharp as it reaches 300mm when it is decidedly
    soft. Treat it as a 70-200mm lens with ther 200-300mm range for
    emergencies and you may be very pleased.

    There is an alternative; the Tamron 70-300mm LD is almost as good
    optically as the Nikon ED but is far better than the Nikon G, yet its
    price is much nearer that of the Nikon G. An even better option might
    be the discontinued 75-300mm AF Nikkor which can be found used at
    about the price of a new G lens, and represents superb value at that
    price. Its 200-300mm performance is also better than the 70-300mm ED
    Nikkor.
     
    T P, Jul 26, 2003
    #4
  5. I have heards TONS of people give a bad opinion of the 70-300 G lens, but
    others have been more forgiving of it. I don't think it's a bad lens really,
    though almost every posting I see from others seem to say that it is.

    There is this website of a guy who tests (sort of tests) different Nikkor
    lenses:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

    And another one:

    http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

    Frankly, from what I've read the construction of the 70-300 G and 70-300
    D-ED are almost identical, and the latter (I'm told) has ED glass on only 1
    of the elements. The main difference really would be that the G one wouldn't
    work on an older Nikon camera whereas the D- ED one would. The difference
    obviously is because of the G not having a regular aperture ring.

    As for the Nikon N80 camera--you are not alone in your feelings. Practically
    everyone who's touched it loves it. I do too; I won one on eBay (haven't
    received it yet) after trying one out in the stores. It's an easy camera to
    love.

    Just remember--any old manual-focus Nikon won't meter on the N80. They'll
    fit and you could use them if you carry a hand-held meter or it's a
    situation that involves guessing anyway. (As an example, last night I took
    photos of lightning in manual mode and used an old 70's Vivitar Series 1
    70-210 f/3.5 [67mm filter size] zoom, and in that case it made no
    difference.) But if you're converting over to Canon, I don't see you having
    that as a current issue. Just keep it in mind if you decide to buy older
    used Nikon lenses. Stick with the autofocus ones, preferably one with "D" in
    it (if it's not a G lens; G lenses are inheriently "D" as well).

    Welcome to the world of Nikons!

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 27, 2003
    #5
  6. Motorcyclesaur

    T P Guest

    The difference in optical performance is *massive*.
    The main difference is the optical performance. See above.

    Both work perfectly well on the Nikon F80 (N80), which is what the OP
    was asking.

    I apologise for answering the question that was asked, which has
    obviously caused you some concern.

    ;-)
     
    T P, Jul 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Motorcyclesaur

    T P Guest

    Wise words. VERY wise words. Far better to have an F80 (N80) with
    good lenses than an F100 with junk glass.
    Yes, that's the one!
    It is well worth the money. It is one of Nikon's AF successes.
    Yes, that's the one.
    I would strongly recommend that you avoid Sigma lenses, based on long
    experience of poor optics (bearing no resemblance to the hand built
    examples they submit to magazines for "testing", and allow reviewers
    to keep), unreliability and lack of availability of spares in the UK.

    I repeat my recommendation of the earlier 75-300mm AF Nikkor which has
    a significantly better performance than the current ED model in the
    200mm to 300mm range and is as good as the ED in the 75-200mm range.
    There's no need to apologise. I'm more than happy to help!

    If I might just add something; if your budget will cope, do add at
    least one fixed focal length lens. For example, a 24mm f/2.8 or 50mm
    f/1.8 AF Nikkor. Both are superbly sharp and the 50mm is a
    ridiculously cheap used buy offering much better low light ability
    than either zoom and outstanding value for money. The 24mm gives
    options beyond the range of the 28-105mm and is surprisingly wider
    than the 28mm focal length.

    Good luck!

    Tony
     
    T P, Jul 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Why are you not looking at Leica? They make the best lenses on the
    planet. Quit wasting time.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Jul 27, 2003
    #8
  9. In his case, it might be because he's using a Nikon, not a Leica...
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 28, 2003
    #9
  10. If he can afford safari trips to Africa, he can afford Leica.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Jul 28, 2003
    #10
  11. Maybe his non use of Leicas is responsible for him being able to take safari
    trips to Africa...
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 28, 2003
    #11
  12. William Graham, Jul 28, 2003
    #12
  13. I love travelling (I consider it the ultimate leisure and cultural activity)
    and I do it as much as I can.

    I have no idea of what a Leica set of equipment costs (although I know it
    might be a generous few thousands of dollars), and the real reason why I do
    not want to buy one is that I don't feel that a Leica would turn my humble
    photos into masterpieces. This, is also the reason why I have not chosen to
    integrate a couple of zooms with three or four very expensive tele and
    super-tele lenses.

    I just hope to have some more GOOD shots out of my films, and I think that
    there is still much that I can do without spending so much money. The day
    that I will realise that my skills equal those of a Photographer, I will
    certainly consider another upgrade.


    M.
     
    Motorcyclesaur, Jul 29, 2003
    #13
  14. Voila!

    It is now in my camera bag together with the 28-105mm and the 70-300mm D ED.

    After a nearly two-hours shopping, testing lenses and combinations, I felt
    that this one was the best choice. I hope to be able to test the new gear
    over the weekend with a film in it, and let you have my comments.
    The camera handles very well and the basic functions seem quite simple to
    use. I just feel a little unconfortable when I change lenses, as the
    attachment rotates in the opposite way (compared to Canon EF).
    Thank you for taking trouble, I will let you know what I think of it.
     
    Motorcyclesaur, Jul 29, 2003
    #14
  15. That's cheap but IMHO not a good deal, as Kenya deserves more than a mere
    week. Furthermore (you quote in USD and I assume you travel from North
    America), if you go in that area and you love Africa, you can't miss
    Tanzania, the Ngorongoro crater, and the Kilimanjaro.
    The bill will go up a bit (Tanzania isn't less expensive than NYC) but, in
    my opinion, if you want to do it you have to do it the right way... and, of
    course, you will need a Leica super-tele ;-)

    Hope it will help you to enjoy one of the most interesting parts of the
    world.

    M.
     
    Motorcyclesaur, Jul 29, 2003
    #15


  16. I strongly suggest you look in the used market for a Leica reflex body
    (SL, SL2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, etc) and the 400mm f/6.8 Telyt-R, or the
    560 f/6.8mm Telyt-R.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Jul 29, 2003
    #16
  17. Motorcyclesaur

    T P Guest


    You're very welcome.


    I have little doubt that you will be pleased with your purchases.

    Enjoy!!
     
    T P, Jul 29, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.