I have a trio of lightweight AF Nikkor "walk around" lens that I enjoy for causal shooting in focal lengths 18-35mm, 24-85mm, and 70-300mm.
The AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lenses are recent upgrades of older AF-D-series 18-35mm and 28-85mm Nikkors I had. They are very nice, versatile and lightweight lenses I enjoy using. My older AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED has been surprisingly good but I was still looking for a chance to upgrade. I have an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D that I love but also enjoy having a smaller, lighter lens for walking around.
So... Ken Rockwell's review pages led me to look into the older AF 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D, which he raves about. I purchased a like-new specimen from KEH for $99. I figured it would be worth a try at that price. I spent this morning doing a direct comparison with my 70-300mm. Besides having an additional 100mm of range, my 70-300mm AF-D ED seemed to beat it in all regards.
To be honest, despite the bad rep the very inexpensive AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED gets, I think it is a ridiculous value for the price. I bought mine new when they came out and still think it's a good value, but at the prices you can pick one up for now, I can't imagine not being happy with one. What's funny is that Mr. Rockwell seems to really dislike that lens, using the term "funhouse mirror" in reference to its distortion. I have yet to be bothered by it's distortion, although I have not yet photographed any brick walls with it...
I don't do very much printing and tend to mostly share a lot of casual photographs on line. Reading too many reviews can really get me doubting the performance of some of the lenses I have. I think excessive review-reading causes many folks to overlook bargain-priced lenses they could get a lot of enjoyment and value out of. The AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED might just be one of those lenses...
The AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lenses are recent upgrades of older AF-D-series 18-35mm and 28-85mm Nikkors I had. They are very nice, versatile and lightweight lenses I enjoy using. My older AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED has been surprisingly good but I was still looking for a chance to upgrade. I have an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D that I love but also enjoy having a smaller, lighter lens for walking around.
So... Ken Rockwell's review pages led me to look into the older AF 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D, which he raves about. I purchased a like-new specimen from KEH for $99. I figured it would be worth a try at that price. I spent this morning doing a direct comparison with my 70-300mm. Besides having an additional 100mm of range, my 70-300mm AF-D ED seemed to beat it in all regards.
To be honest, despite the bad rep the very inexpensive AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED gets, I think it is a ridiculous value for the price. I bought mine new when they came out and still think it's a good value, but at the prices you can pick one up for now, I can't imagine not being happy with one. What's funny is that Mr. Rockwell seems to really dislike that lens, using the term "funhouse mirror" in reference to its distortion. I have yet to be bothered by it's distortion, although I have not yet photographed any brick walls with it...
I don't do very much printing and tend to mostly share a lot of casual photographs on line. Reading too many reviews can really get me doubting the performance of some of the lenses I have. I think excessive review-reading causes many folks to overlook bargain-priced lenses they could get a lot of enjoyment and value out of. The AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED might just be one of those lenses...