Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
3 weeks ago I bought a Nikon D70 with a 18-70mm lens. To widen my horizons, I want to buy a telezoom. Now the question is which one. And should I go for a 28-300mm or 70-300mm. From a practical point of view I would choose for the latter. Is there a quality difference between these lenses?
Thanks for the advice!
BiBi
I can't comment on the 28-300mm, but I can highly recommend the Nikkor 70-300mm AF-D.
A superb lens for the money, I would go for the AF-D version over the much cheaper 'G' type. With the 'D' type you get an aperture ring, a metal lens mount and best of all at least one ED element.
click HERE to see a shot taken with this lens at full zoom on a D70.
Or HERE for a full review.
Paul
I have the 18-70 and also the 70-300D ED both superb lenses, I use them on a D100. The long range zooms like 28-300 are a big compromise and why overlap the range you have already ?
BOB
PS Some pics in my profile as well - especially the dragonfly - I have had this printed to A2 and you can count the hairs on its legs.
I have the Nikkor 70-300G, 79 from Jacobs. It may not have an aperture ring (why would you need one with the D70?) or a metal camera mount but the results I have had so far have been very good. For amateur use there is less reason to need a metal mount anyway, unless you are clumsy or heavy handed.
Ian
I can't comment on Gary's suggestion of the Sigma 70-300mm APO, as I have never used one, But Ken Rockwell's findings, that the 70-300mm AF-D lens displays circus like distortions, have definitely not materialised on my lens.
You will also find people on the web stating that this lens is soft when wide open and that's something else which my lens does not suffer from.
I read all the good and bad reports about this lens before I went out and bought one, "including Ken Rockwell's" Maybe I have been lucky and bought a good one, "who knows" although there are a couple more here who seem to be happy with their choice.
All I can suggest, is that you take your D70 along to a dealer and try out a few lenses on it and find one that feels right to you, then hope that when you get it home, the images you see on the cameras LCD look just as good on your monitor.
Paul
Both the lenses are good, in fact I find there is no noticable difference between the two lenses.
Paying twice as much for a metal lens mount and slightly thicker plastic seems like madness to me.
I have the 70-300 AF-G lens and considering it's a cheap lens I'm really surprised at how good it is. I don't think you'll be dissapointed. Also heard very good things about the AF-D version with the ED element, but whether it's worth twice what the G version is I couldn't say.
Go on, Christmas is coming. Go and get a Nikkor 80-400VR. It will beat the lenses already mentioned hands down for sharpness and colours. It should do, it will set you back 1,000 plus. But, if you are thinking of doing any sports then give the VR a miss, a trifle too slow for that game. Landscapes, portraits and wildlife it's top notch.
Thanks for the tip, but my budget doesn't allow me to spend me so much money again. I just bought the camera, so can't afford to spend another GBP 1000.
I think I am going for the Sigma APO 70-300 macro. AFter some research I think this is a better choice than the Nikon G and it definately has a better price than the Nikon ED.
Don't rule out second hand you can pick up some good bargains.
I have owned and used Nikons older AF 75mm-300mm lens which has a built in rotating tripod mount {very use-full with this focal length) and even more so with the 1.5x factor of the D70.
I regret selling it as I later purchased the Sigma APO 70mm-300mm lens to replace it.
I still have this lens but since getting the 80mm-400mm VR it stays at home locked away.
Both these lenses can be picked up for less than a 100 in mint condition.
The Nikon is better built and has a built in tripod mount.
The Sigma APO is a super sharp piece of kit but build quality does'nt even come close. (but it does double up as a macro giving 1/2 life size images or more on the D70 from just under a meter away great for wildlife and insects etc)
If you are sticking to a budget I can certainly reccommend the 70-300 G Nikkor, I have not tried the Sigma and if it offers a good macro setting it could be a good choice, but the image quality from the Nikkor 'G, IMHO, leaves nothing to be desired (I have just had a five page spread of 7 photos published in a Glossy Off-Road 2004 review magazine with many of the shots, including two full page size prints which were taken on the 'G' and they have printed very well indeed!), The other Nikkor and the Sigma may be more sturdily built but are both correspondingly more expensive, but purely on Image quality I doubt I could tell the difference.
JoeB
Oh man,
The more I hear the more I get confused... My decision to go for the Sigma APO is the macro feature.
I had a Sigma before for my analogue Canon and I haven't been too careful with it and it survived more than 6 years in bagpacks and different weather conditions.
On the other hand, I heard from a couple of shops that they would buy lenses from the same brand as the camera. Looking at my budget most of them indeed suggested the Nikon "G".
BiBi
If you want the Macro feature the sigma may well be the best feature/cost lens, the Nikkor'G' does not focus close enough to give even close to a macro mode!. There is no compatability problem (that I have heard of) with 3rd party lenses so I would not worry about buying same brand as the camera, especially in the budget end of the market.
If you get a chance to try them do so!
Joe B
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.

















