Hello all,
I had a question.
Does anyone know weather there is any difference between high end lens like Nikon 80-200 2.8 and the Nikon 70-300 ED on a digital camera body like D70. Someone told me that the advantage which Nikon 80-200 has over 70-300 goes away in digital camera.

I know the 2.8 aperture does not make a diff as digital has the option of increasing the ISO. I am more concerned about the picture quality only

Hello all,
I had a question.
Does anyone know weather there is any difference between high end lens like Nikon 80-200 2.8 and the Nikon 70-300 ED on a digital camera body like D70. Someone told me that the advantage which Nikon 80-200 has over 70-300 goes away in digital camera.

I know the 2.8 aperture does not make a diff as digital has the option of increasing the ISO. I am more concerned about the picture quality only

I'd like to know what advantage "someone" says goes away in a DSLR. I can't think of any. Yes, the ability to switch iso settings to a higher speed can compensate for a lens with a slower aperture, but remember that image noise and quality decrease as iso settings go higher. This is hardly an advantage imho. The high end pro lenses are sharper than their consumer counterparts, usually significantly so, especially wide open and edge to edge. The lenses themselves have a much better build quality and can take incredible amounts of physical wear and tear compared to consumer lenses. The wider aperture of the pro lenses also allow for a brighter viewfinder, allowing easier manual focus, an important advantage in a DSLR where the viewfinder is noticeably darker than on 35mm bodies due to the 1.5 (on Nikon) cropping factor of the sensor (the viewfinders are made to match the actual viewing field of the sensor). Maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't think of any advantage a pro lens has over a consumer lens that would disappear simply by attaching it to a DSLR. Perhaps you could elaborate on "someone"s arguments for the disappearing advantage on a DSLR body. ;)

I'd like to know what advantage "someone" says goes away in a DSLR. I can't think of any. Yes, the ability to switch iso settings to a higher speed can compensate for a lens with a slower aperture, but remember that image noise and quality decrease as iso settings go higher. This is hardly an advantage imho. The high end pro lenses are sharper than their consumer counterparts, usually significantly so, especially wide open and edge to edge. The lenses themselves have a much better build quality and can take incredible amounts of physical wear and tear compared to consumer lenses. The wider aperture of the pro lenses also allow for a brighter viewfinder, allowing easier manual focus, an important advantage in a DSLR where the viewfinder is noticeably darker than on 35mm bodies due to the 1.5 (on Nikon) cropping factor of the sensor (the viewfinders are made to match the actual viewing field of the sensor). Maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't think of any advantage a pro lens has over a consumer lens that would disappear simply by attaching it to a DSLR. Perhaps you could elaborate on "someone"s arguments for the disappearing advantage on a DSLR body. ;)

Hello,
I think I agree that:
1. The pro 2.8 lens have better built
2. The can take a lot of abuse
3. View finder is brighter.

However I was just concerned about the quality of image. Now is it true that after a point the quality in digital medium does not matter?? I think the argument was that the difference in quality which is seen by blowing up the picture 200% and looking at pixels is not going to make a difference as a 9' by 8' or smaller print of the picture will not show that difference. So even if the image is sharper, it will not be visible in the print. And on computer screen unless until blown up, this will not be visible.
The quality of lens was much more important in film as when we got the slide scanned it would loose information. Thus it was worth while trying to get as much information on the film as possible.

The above argument was given to me by a local film developer. I had gone to deposit the last of my film roll and we just happen to talk. I became interested as I have just bought the Nikon D70 along with Nikon 18-70 AF-S DX lens and have been saving up to buy either Nikon 80-400VR or Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR.

Thanks for your reply,

Rohit

Also the advantage with a fast lens of less depth of field and better autofocus in low light. Those two things don't change regardless of what the lens is attached to.

The advantage with a slow lens on a DSLR is that you can bump the ISO up a stop or two for a shot if needed. Of course with film, you'd have to put in another roll which you might not do for just a quick shot. But to say that the advantage of a faster lens goes away just because it's on a DSLR is incorrect.

Also the advantage with a fast lens of less depth of field and better autofocus in low light. Those two things don't change regardless of what the lens is attached to.

The advantage with a slow lens on a DSLR is that you can bump the ISO up a stop or two for a shot if needed. Of course with film, you'd have to put in another roll which you might not do for just a quick shot. But to say that the advantage of a faster lens goes away just because it's on a DSLR is incorrect.


Hello,
I am sure you are right about depth of field. However my primary concern was quality of picture. I am an armature. So unless there is a difference in quality of images which is noticeable, it would be hard for me to justify spending $1500 on the lens. Unlike professional I will not be putting the lens through rough time. And the DOF will not matter to me too much is quality of image is almost as good as the pro 2.8 lens.

However if I make a 9' by 8' print from these lens and there is a noticeable difference in quality then of course I will go for the pro lens.


Thanks for you comments
Rohit

Is that a print size of nine feet by eight feet? If that's the case then one of the camera maker's sharpest lens (probably a prime lens) will be in order. Of course a tripod, cable release and proper shooting technique are also a must.

If you meant inches, then I think you'll be happy with most consumer zoom lenses - especially the one you mention. I've taken a few shots with that lens and been impressed by the quality versus the size and weight of the lens. It also focuses pretty close for a 300mm lens. IMO, lens sharpness really can't be discussed unless we're talking about shooting on a tripod, etc. anyway...

Hello,
I meant inches.

I guess I am leaning towards the Nikon 70-300 ED. I called up the camera store and they told me that I can try out both the lens. So to be 100% sure I will go and try out both the lens and make prints out of the pictures I take.

Thanks
Rohit