Does the 70-300 zoom have NON-rotating filter mount? How about the "G" version? Does anyone actually own and use a 70-300G?---scott
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
#1. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 0vchong Basic MemberThu 30-Aug-01 03:34 AM
I don't believe that either of these lenses have a non-rotating front piece. The Tamron 70-300mm (both models) have a rotating ring as well.
#3. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 2gmatrix Registered since 21st Apr 2006Sat 15-Sep-01 05:29 PM
I bought the G version on impulse. It's a plastic tube with glass; no aperture ring; plastic lens mount. But I shot a few rolls of a soccer game. I mostly shot at 300 mm--- f7 at 1/800 mounted on my F100. Made a few black and white 8x10's. I don't know about edges, but in the center I could read the lettering on a player's socks. I was shooting from across the field to about mid-field. I think it will be a good lens for the things I want to shoot. Also, It weighs very little. and costs very less. I doubt it will be a lens discussed on message boards because there's no prestige in owning one. But if a shooter wants decent quality at a low price, it's something to consider.
#4. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 3shankar_thanu Basic MemberTue 25-Sep-01 01:14 PM
Can you be more specific about the difference between a 'G' and a 'D' lens? Any idea as to why it is this cheap compared to other types?
>I bought the G version on
>impulse. It's a plastic
>tube with glass; no aperture
>ring; plastic lens mount.
> But I shot a
>few rolls of a soccer
>game. I mostly shot at
>300 mm--- f7 at 1/800
>mounted on my F100.
>Made a few black and
>white 8x10's. I don't know
>about edges, but in the
>center I could read the
>lettering on a player's socks.
> I was shooting from
>across the field to about
>mid-field. I think it
>will be a good lens
>for the things I want
>to shoot. Also, It
>weighs very little. and
>costs very less. I
>doubt it will be a
>lens discussed on message boards
>because there's no prestige in
>owning one. But if a
>shooter wants decent quality at
>a low price, it's something
#5. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 4pete Basic MemberTue 25-Sep-01 05:19 PM
I own the ED version, looked at both.
There are a couple of main differences.
1: the G doesn't have the aperature ring ( the N80 doesn't need it anyway)
2: plastic mount
3: plastic body
4: No ED glass
I love the ED that I bought, but the I hear the G is good as well and cost about $200 less.
#6. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 5OmegaX25 Basic MemberThu 27-Sep-01 03:15 AM
I have the G lens. I've shot a couple of rolls of film with it and I really like it. Prints look very sharp, with good contrast. I'm sure in more scientific tests the ED version would be sharper. However, for the price (I paid a little under USD$100) it's very good value in my opinion.
#7. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 4gmatrix Registered since 21st Apr 2006Sun 30-Sep-01 06:40 PM
My guess is that Nikon saved by eliminating the steel lens mount. That may also save assembly time. If you mismount the plastic lens mount against the steel of the F100 or F5, etc, There's a good chance the plastic lens mount will break. It happened to one of my students.
In addition, the G does not have a manual aperture ring--so there's more saving. Beyond that, I cannot say. The glass seems fairly ok. I'm only making 8x10 black and white enlargements-maybe 11x14 from a full negative. The lens may not be great for color. Still, for little money, you could explore that zoom range and decide if it's useful for your way of shooting.
#8. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 0
I own the G and the 28-105D. The G immediately replaced my D lens as my standard on-the-camera lens as soon as I my pictures came back from processing. Since I own the N80, it is a marriage that is very comfortable without an aperature ring; I can still set it but it takes a finger on the body of the camera and not two on the lens; and my heavy old bulky metal dial dependable phone has long been replaced too! Yep, with a plastic modern dependable one: plastics aren't the curse some seem to want to make them. Anyone know what our super spy planes are made of??? hehehe. Neither is anyone completely sure what kind of glass is inside this lens, unless they work for Nikon. Sure it doesn't say ED but the pictures are awesome; do I care if they are saving money by not listing ED on every piece of paper that mentions this lens? Who is ED anyway, the talking horse? "A student broke one!" I teach high school students, they can break the "unbreakable" things!! I am also surprised how many low light pictures have come out rock solid sharp; could it be the weight issue? better technique? or the N80: I think it is all three; get this lens!
#9. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 8nguyensonhai Basic MemberThu 04-Oct-01 05:19 AM
I've just got a F80 body. When I read the manual instruction, it always emphasizes that the figures of the N80 must come along with D-type lens. Is there anything bad with the 70-300 G-type, besides the absence of the aperture ring. Pete said that F80 does not need this ring. But I wonder that some data like the subject-lens distance can not be transmited correctly between the lens and the body. Can any one help me shed the light on this matter.
Many thanks in advance
#10. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 9jnscbl Basic MemberThu 04-Oct-01 09:56 AM
Read down in the specifications and you will see that it is a "D"-type design. Nikon is stupid for not putting the "D" in the model name. They ought to have a word instead of a letter (G) to denote the new aperture-ringless line of lenses, something psuedo-Latin sounding, like Nikia maybe.
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
#11. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 10bowmah Basic MemberSat 06-Oct-01 01:12 AM
Thanks for the link, I see what u mean now. It is actually a D-type lens without the Aperture ring (G denotes this). Thanks!
"What we have to learn, we learn by doing."
"Happiness is not having what you want but wanting what you have."
#12. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 8
I too bought one 70-200mm G lens. I have been fiddling around with this baby and haven't actually seriously shoot anything yet.
With your experience how is it performing WITHOUT a tripod? Esp. at the long end. I can see there are many situation where we have to use the long end without any tripod or monopod.
I am interested in action pictures with this lens on continuous dynamic AF mode. Tried it before? How are the pics?
#14. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 12Sun 07-Oct-01 08:05 PM
Libra, my pictures were anything and everything I could shoot in Homer, Alaska; the road to Anchorage from Homer; and Anchorage. I already had a bunch of 28-105 shots so I could play; most were without tripod but all were shot as steadily as I could, given the conditions. I leaned on anything I could but I do that with all lenses. Even the moose, in the shade, on a trail in Kincaid Park came out fine. That one wasn't easy to shoot because this young bull was taking ownership of the trail by sitting in the middle of it, we had to go cross country to get past him as the trail ahead was far shorter than the way we had come, he was in deep shade, my brother was afraid it would charge us, and it was past seven at night. Those shots were with 200, dare I say it, Kodachrome. I am now trying out the 400-800 Afga and Kodak Max's. Those extra stops might be useful and the family is complaining about not enough prints and too many slides. Action pictures will need either sun or film speed; that's why the pros use those faster monster lenes or the VR (for the VERY RICH) lens. Hey, with the improvments seen in the 800's, you might find this a very useful lens. I don't think the D, ED, G, or PQR and Z will matter much here; 5.6 is 5.6 and good pod use is always recommended even with everything else being perfect. Hope this helps. Ken
#15. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 14Sun 07-Oct-01 10:51 PM
Using a monopod is the only way to even use a "monster" 400mm f2.8. And ED does matter for image quality. 5.6 wouldn't be a bad fstop, if someone would produce an ED version of it. I personally think that improved films have brought us past the point of needing f2.8 for every lens.
#16. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 14Libra Basic MemberMon 08-Oct-01 05:36 AM
Thanks. Very interesting. Nice to hear that you are from Alaska. I am from the other side of the world. Malaysia. Pardom me for my ignorance "Geographically".
Anchorage, yes but is Homer that little dot on my map by the tip of Cook's Inlet and Kachemak Bay? I mean between the two.
Sounds like you have tons of experience behind. May be I will heed your advice.. the pod thing. Next on my list.
By the way, why not post some pics in your bags for us to see? I love those pictures posted by members like CharlesYVR.
#17. "RE: 70-300" | In response to Reply # 16Mon 08-Oct-01 08:25 PM
Ah, I wish I lived in Homer,Alaska; my mother lives there ... I am in Zachary, Louisiana. Homer is the dot 200 miles south of Anchorage (you are geographically correct) and Zachary is the dot just above Baton Rouge. I do not scan yet and have seen very very few pictures that really scanned well compared to their original but I can tell you that David Welling has done an ad for Nikon in the November issue of Outdoor Photography that is of a gecko on a wooden branch using the G and the SB-50DX flash. Sorry to you ED lens guys but if Welling's picture were any sharper it would cut your finger as you turned the page!!! hahaha The pod thing isn't just my experience, it is in every book you can read on good techniques. Equipment you can buy, experience you can earn but technique you can steal: read for all you are worth! Seach all your sites for tripods, monopods, and shooting techniques. Hope you all have a great Nikonian day!