Nikon 70-300mm lenses

I

Ian T

Guest
I've seen these three 70-300 lenses (on price buster):

Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - £84.95
Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 - £264.00
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR - £328.95

What is it that makes these lenses so different? Is it down to the number of internal elements, design quality, etc? Also, what is the significance of the 'G' on the cheaper one? What does 'VR' mean?

Thanks.
 
I've seen these three 70-300 lenses (on price buster):

Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - £84.95
Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 - £264.00
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR - £328.95

What is it that makes these lenses so different? Is it down to the number of internal elements, design quality, etc? Also, what is the significance of the 'G' on the cheaper one? What does 'VR' mean?

Thanks.

The cheapest G one is useable on digital only
The middle one is usually referred to as an ED lens which means it uses higher quality glass in the lens (stupid high price there btw should be around £150 IIRC)
The last one is the middle one plus VR "Vibration Reduction" (called IS - Image Stabilisation - on a Canon) & is clearly the best of the bunch (I have one)
Nikon recently launched a 55-200mm with VR for around £250 (if you don't need the 200-300mm obviously)
HTH - Paul ;)
 
Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 - £264.00
Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - £84.95
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR - £328.95

It should really go in this order too.

If you can squeezse to the VR version (which is the latest revision) then you should.

King.
 
Yeah if you can afford it get the VR, I've just got one great lens (y)
 
Thanks guys. Lack of an aperture ring shouldn't be a problem though should it? I'm not buying a long lens just yet, but trying to find out more about them first. I don't mind spending more money if it's worthwhile.
 
Carn't see it been too much of a problem, never really used the aperture rings on my lenses. Only time I have has been when using extension tubes :shrug:
 
VR lens is a fabulous piece of kit - you won't regret buying it. Only problem is, you'll soon want the 18-200 VR, then the 70-200 VR, and so it goes on...!!!
 
Ok, I've been looking at Sigma alternatives, again 70-300mm. Something that's confused me for a while is macro. Both the Sigma lenses I've seen are marketed as macro lenses. What's the difference between this, and telephoto? Or is the lens still good for both?

Thanks again for all the help.
 
The MACRO on the sigma produces a 1:2 magnification. It isnt a true MACRO lens. It is just capable to focusing quite close at 300mm.

The Sigma APO 70-300mm isnt a bad buy but the Nikon 70-300mm VR is a much better investment, by a long shot.

King.
 
The Sigmas are still 'proper' telephoto lenses, but arn't true macro lenses. As I understand, they have internal elements that reduce the minimum working distance of the lens, giving a semi-macro effect when focusing on things that are relatively close. Probably good for photographing butterflies and things of that size, but not for 'real' 1:1 macro work.
 
But see, then there's the Sigma 28-300 (only goes to 1:3, but I'm not buying specifically to use as a macro), which would mean I could leave the 18-70 at home a lot of the time. But is it going to be too much of a compromise? Although lots of choice is a good thing, I'm getting a headache!
 
But see, then there's the Sigma 28-300 (only goes to 1:3, but I'm not buying specifically to use as a macro), which would mean I could leave the 18-70 at home a lot of the time. But is it going to be too much of a compromise? Although lots of choice is a good thing, I'm getting a headache!

I'd say yes to the compromise question - your 18-70mm will be much better up to 70mm than either of the Sigma's imho - If you only plan occasional macro you could consider buying a "close up lens" like the Canon 500D (Hoya do some as well) which screws onto any lens (like a filter) - I plan to do this when I have some money as I cant justify spending the extra on a dedicated macro lens as I just dont do enough macro stuff - I plan to use the close up lens on either of my lenses which happen to have the same filter size - HTH ... Paul ;)
 
The MACRO on the sigma produces a 1:2 magnification. It isnt a true MACRO lens. It is just capable to focusing quite close at 300mm.

The Sigma APO 70-300mm isnt a bad buy but the Nikon 70-300mm VR is a much better investment, by a long shot.

King.

True, I had the sigma non apo and have just got the nikon VR what a difference :D more than worth the money.
 
Back
Top