Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Used, Long Range Lenses for D5200
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 599628" data-attributes="member: 13090"><p>I'm not sure I have a "bottom dollar price point" for what I would consider a very good, used lens in the 300mm range. Any particular lens, used or new, simply costs what it costs and it would be up to me to determine if what I'm <strong>getting</strong> is worth what I'm <strong>paying</strong>.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">...</span></p><p>It's too early to look up all the alphabet soup for all three versions but yes; I mean to say the current version of the Nikon 70-300mm, the VR version let's call it, is superior to its predecessors; those being the non-VR, G & ED versions. By "superior" I mean it renders better image quality as measured by such things as sharpness, contrast and color, all other things being equal. In my opinion, calling the earliest version of the lens "good" is being a bit too kind. Calling the second edition "good" I think is accurate and the latest version I would call very, very good if not excellent. I certainly think it's punching well above its weight-class. </p><p></p><p>And yes, terms like "good" and "superior" are subjective; I think that's a given. Do you know of a purely objective scale on which lenses are judged we could be using instead? Because if you do I'd interested to hear about it.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">...</span></p><p>I agree. It seems like a fine choice.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">...</span></p><p>I am of the opinion some lenses are better than others, that some lenses are <em>significantly</em> better than others and in some instances would be perfectly comfortable using the phrase, "vastly superior". If you want to call that "measurebation", I guess that's up to you.</p><p></p><p>Let me ask you, though: Are you of the opinion that all lenses are created equal? </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">...</span></p><p>I really don't remember saying anything like that... Not even remotely. In the final analysis of my photography, or anyone else's, I'm of the opinion the images speak for themselves. I could care less if you got there using a rig that cost five dollars, or five-thousand dollars.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">...</span></p><p>And how would you define "best"? Sounds a little subjective to me... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Not that I disagree.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">...</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 599628, member: 13090"] I'm not sure I have a "bottom dollar price point" for what I would consider a very good, used lens in the 300mm range. Any particular lens, used or new, simply costs what it costs and it would be up to me to determine if what I'm [B]getting[/B] is worth what I'm [B]paying[/B]. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]...[/COLOR] It's too early to look up all the alphabet soup for all three versions but yes; I mean to say the current version of the Nikon 70-300mm, the VR version let's call it, is superior to its predecessors; those being the non-VR, G & ED versions. By "superior" I mean it renders better image quality as measured by such things as sharpness, contrast and color, all other things being equal. In my opinion, calling the earliest version of the lens "good" is being a bit too kind. Calling the second edition "good" I think is accurate and the latest version I would call very, very good if not excellent. I certainly think it's punching well above its weight-class. And yes, terms like "good" and "superior" are subjective; I think that's a given. Do you know of a purely objective scale on which lenses are judged we could be using instead? Because if you do I'd interested to hear about it. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]...[/COLOR] I agree. It seems like a fine choice. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]...[/COLOR] I am of the opinion some lenses are better than others, that some lenses are [I]significantly[/I] better than others and in some instances would be perfectly comfortable using the phrase, "vastly superior". If you want to call that "measurebation", I guess that's up to you. Let me ask you, though: Are you of the opinion that all lenses are created equal? [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]...[/COLOR] I really don't remember saying anything like that... Not even remotely. In the final analysis of my photography, or anyone else's, I'm of the opinion the images speak for themselves. I could care less if you got there using a rig that cost five dollars, or five-thousand dollars. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]...[/COLOR] And how would you define "best"? Sounds a little subjective to me... ;) Not that I disagree. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]...[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Used, Long Range Lenses for D5200
Top