# Which lens do you suggest - the Nikon 70-300, 75-300, or 70-200?



## ted_smith (Apr 21, 2007)

Hi....

...and HELP!!! 

I have decided to sell my Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm 4-5.6 G zoom and replace it it with a better quality lens of the same or similar length, but I've read that many reviews I don't know which to go for. People have so many things to say, good and bad, about all of them! Before I go on, may I state that my primary use of the lens will be to photograph dogs and cats outdoors or in 'glass conservatory' type indoor environments where the light is OK and my bodies are Nikon D70s and F80 and I have a Manfrotto tripod.  

I have read about the Nikon/Nikkor 70-300mm AF-D ED Zoom as being a straight swap of the G lens with 'twice the optical quality' (photo.net). However, I have read that some people say it is not a true Nikon lens and is actually a Tamron lens, and some people also say that the ED glass does not make a massive difference to the quality? Ken Rockwell said that the only difference between the two lenses is the  metal mount and that the optics are more or less the same (although I was warned to take what he says with a pinch of salt).  (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm)

I have read about the '[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nikon       70 - 210 mm f/4 - 5.6 D' lens - slightly shorter but apparently much better quality than the[/FONT] 70-300mm AF-D ED Zoom and I can pick one up that is not a D-Type within my price range http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKON-70-210-...ryZ30033QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem. 

But then I read about the Nikon Nikkor  75-300mm AF  Zoom (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/75300.htm)! Again, almost the same focal length but apparently really good as well and built better than the 70-300 4-5.6. And due to the exchange rate between the US dollar and the British Sterling pound I can pick this up brand new from ebay.com for the same price as a second hand 70-210mm will cost me here in the UK. 

Lastly, I read about the Nikon Nikkor  75-300mm AF  Zoom which is apparently the best one of the bunch and the one I would like to buy, but it's too pricy for me at around £400+ ($750+). My price range is about £100-£150 ($220-£300) which I know is crap for a photography hobby but I'm not a massive earner and the wife doesn't like me spending loads on kit if I can avoid it!! 

So, please can anyone help me choose? Again, primarily for dogs and cat shots, but also portraits etc, but please be quick! I am looking to buy tomorrow! 

Thanks a lot
Ted


----------



## coastietech (Apr 21, 2007)

Have you thought about the 70-300mm VR lens? The quality is no where near the same as the 70-300mm G lens. I had the G lens and now I own the VR. I can say the difference is amazing. I did a review on it a few days ago here. http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78444 Like the post says all the pictures are of me hand holding at 1/60s. That was damn near impossible to do with my old 70-300mm and the pictures with the new VR came out sharper than if I had the G lens on a tripod. If you have any other questions let me know. Hope this helps.


----------



## myopia (Apr 23, 2007)

u are buying a lens specifically for dog and cat shots? lol


----------



## snownow (Apr 24, 2007)

coastietech said:


> Have you thought about the 70-300mm VR lens? The quality is no where near the same as the 70-300mm G lens. I had the G lens and now I own the VR. I can say the difference is amazing. I did a review on it a few days ago here. http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78444 Like the post says all the pictures are of me hand holding at 1/60s. That was damn near impossible to do with my old 70-300mm and the pictures with the new VR came out sharper than if I had the G lens on a tripod. If you have any other questions let me know. Hope this helps.


 
Ditto for a consumer lens this is a nice piece of glass (70-300 VR). If i dont have my 70-200 on my camera the 70-300 is most likely on it.


----------



## Zatodragon (Apr 24, 2007)

Yea, i wouldn't rely on Ken Rockwell's site very much, seems each piece he reviews at the time is the best and everything else is sub par.  If ya can go for it, the 70-300 VR will probably be the best choice for being close to that price range.  And there is a decent difference with the ED glass coatings.  I'll post em up soon.

The D series of lenses are worth it however, so i'd pick up the 70-300 D series before the 70-210 G.  Unless i read what you posted wrong and were wanting to go with the 70-210 D.

Good Luck!


----------



## ted_smith (Apr 27, 2007)

Thanks everyone for your myriad of responses.


 I am delighted to inform you that, in the end, having read nothing but fine things about the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and not a thing negative (other than it's weight which does not bother me) I felt that if I bought anything else I was wasting my money which should be put towards one of these fine lenses.


  Concerned at the apparent cost brand new (£800 british pounds) and seemingly high value second hand (£350\£400upwards on average for the two ring version, £300 for the one ring) I thought it was way out of my reach. But I searched all over ebay and waited for a while for the right bargain, and the long and short of it is I now I have an immaculate, hardly used Nikon 80-200mm for £200 ($400) used by a pro photographer in London who just wanted to get rid of her Nikon stuff having now migrated to H1 (whatever that is? - Hasselblad, is it?). She wanted £350 for it, but for a quick sale via PayPal she accepted £200.


 I am delighted and it arrived today. So far I've done nothing with it other than attach it but it looks and feels great. I just need to buy a filter and a lens hood for it now (which did not come with unfortunately).


  Thanks again for all your help.


  Ted


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 27, 2007)

You got a 80-200mm f/2.8 for £200? :O :O :O NICE! :thumbup:


----------



## drgibson (Apr 27, 2007)

I have the 80 - 200mm and they will have to pry it out of my cold dead hand to get it away from me.


----------

