18-135mm nikon vs 70-300mm

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

albert - 06 Jun 2007 07:40 GMT

Recently purchased a Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm kit lens. I was showing it
off to a friend that owns a Nikon ED 70-300mm 1:4-5.6D (for film camera)
lens. He is keen to sell this lens. Out of curiosity I ptook two shots of
a house about 250 meters away. The camera was on a tripod and in both cases
the lens were at f5.6. One of the lens was at its full 135mm and the other
at the 300mm (presumably about 450mm on the D80. For the former lens the
ISO was 100, the latter 200. On my computer I then enlarged one of the
windows in the image to screen size and found that the sharper image of the
two was the one taken by th 18-135mm kit lens.
Is this a fluke result? The 70-300mm is quite cheap but I would have to
travel to do more tests and to buy it. Semms a bit odd that the new lens is
so sharp that I don't have to botther with bigger zoom as I can just crop
and enlarge on my pc.

Reply to this Message

ASAAR - 06 Jun 2007 09:36 GMT

> Recently purchased a Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm kit lens. I was showing it
> off to a friend that owns a Nikon ED 70-300mm 1:4-5.6D (for film camera)
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> so sharp that I don't have to botther with bigger zoom as I can just crop
> and enlarge on my pc.

This was an AF lens? According to David Ruether's "SUBJECTIVE
Lens Evaluations" web site :

> 70-300mm f4-5.6 ED AF Rating: 3.5-4
> very compact and light, first two samples tried were moderately
> defective, third was well-aligned, but not up to Nikon's usual
> standards at the image edges for their better tele zooms; good to
> very good sharpness over most of the frame

If this lens happens to be a lemon or in need of realignment, that
could explain why your friend is keen to be rid of it. :) You
might want to try testing the 70-300mm lens at approximately the
same 135mm focal length or maybe 200mm, as it may be particularly
poor when zoomed to the full 300mm extension.

Several samples of another Nikon zooms did better :

> 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF Rating: 4-4.2
> good wide open (with good sample), very good sharpness overall

>100-300mm f5.6 Rating: 4.2-4.4
> unusually low distortion (slight barrel to 135mm, then no distortion
> to 300mm); very good wide open; not good with converters; constant
> aperture with zooming

The ratings are defined as :

0 - unable to form an image
1 - very poor image quality, a "pop bottle bottom"
2 - low image quality, possibly usable for snapshots
3 - fair image quality, perhaps good at one or two stops
4 - good to excellent image quality at most normally used stops,
    a professional-level lens, but with some limitations (this
    level, with many fractional gradations, includes most Nikkors)
5 - excellent image quality at all stops, with only minor
    limitations
6 - near perfect lens with hard to detect shortcomings
7 - absolutely perfect lens in every respect

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html

Later : following one of the links at the bottom of the above web
page, I eventually got to Thom Hogan's review, and it bears out my
suspicion, assuming that it's the same lens you tested :

> A surprise when it was announced, the 70-300mm ED ostensibly
> replaced the dated 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6. While it shares many
> attributes with the older lens, the design is completely new, and,
> to my eye, the results it obtains are noticeably better.

. . .

> First, the good news: in terms of Nikon's consumer offerings, this
> lens is at the top of the heap. I'd call it a distinct improvement on
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> reasonably well controlled (e.g., while present, other telephoto zooms
> I've used show more).

. . .

> Overall, I am quite pleased with the lens, especially on a D1. I'd rank
> this zoom by itself midway between the other consumer telephoto zooms
> and the top-of-the-line AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8.

> Drawbacks
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> with this lens versus, say, the 300mm f/4. Still, in a pinch, the 300mm
> this lens produces is quite usable, especially at f/8 and f/11.

http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

Reply to this Message

Roy G - 06 Jun 2007 10:49 GMT

> Recently purchased a Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm kit lens. I was showing
> it off to a friend that owns a Nikon ED 70-300mm 1:4-5.6D (for film
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> is so sharp that I don't have to botther with bigger zoom as I can just
> crop and enlarge on my pc.

Hi.

From what I have seen and read, neither of the 2 AF 70 -300s, (G & ED), are
up to much in image quality, sharpness and focus, especially at the long
end.

That is why I did not buy one, and went for the 80 - 400 VR, at much greater
cost. It is a real Nikon with lots of bite.

However if you are getting it real cheap, it might be worth buying, until
you can resell and get something better, provided you are aware of its
shortcomings.

Roy G

Reply to this Message

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 06 Jun 2007 10:55 GMT

Interesting, but that's about all, unless you post the images. Are
you certain that there wasn't a focus error, or camera movement
("tripod" does not necessarily mean "still"). Small versions of the
full-frame images, then some 100% crops to show the sharpness
disparity would be nice.

Reply to this Message