I should have known better... ;)

desmobob

Senior Member
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... :rolleyes:

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...
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
In my experience Ken's opinions are worth even less than you pay for them, mainly because you might just waste money after considering them.

The Angry Photographer on YouTube is another one I put in this category.

Everyone as an opinion, and like a broken clock we're all right every once in a while. And there's glass that most folks will trash that find a permanent place in the kit of a pro, so it's different strokes. I find you get what you pay for in terms of consistent quality, but anything out there can take a great photo if you know how to find its sweet spot.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
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.

I have the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G lens. It yields terrific images so no complaints. I chose it based on its weight/size and that supposedly it is a little sharper than the 16-35mm f/4. But in hindsight, I wish I had gotten the 16-35mm VR. I would have liked the extra 2mm on the wide end as well as VR.

I don't know anything about the 70-300mm you chose. I have the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR which is nice. But after getting the 70-200mm f/4 VR, I haven't touched the other. If the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii (or newer model) is out of your budget and weight class (that thing is heavy), if you ever see a good price on the 70-200mm f/4 VR, it is lighter yet sharp! ;)
 
Top