18-135mm nikon vs 70-300mm

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.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:40:21 +0100, albert wrote:

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.

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
the 75-300mm it replaced. From its widest setting to about midrange,
it performs well even at f/5.6, with results at f/8 and f/11 virtually
indistinguishable from the considerably more expensive 80-200 f/2.8,
except, perhaps, at the very corners. On a D1 I wouldn't have any
qualms at using this lens wide open at any zoom setting between
70-200mm. Distortion was visible at the telephoto end, but not enough
for me to worry about in the types of photography I do; if you're into
using telephotos for architectural work, well, you're going to see
enough pinbarrel at the 300mm end to keep you from smiling.

On the down side, the results at f/22 and f/32, as is usual for telephotos,
is not particularly good. And as you near 300mm, you'll see some
softness at all apertures, and the edges are distinctly soft. You can keep
both problems reasonably in check by using f/8 or f/11. Chromatic
aberration is distinctly present in the sample image, above, though
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

* No depth of field scale. In fact, it's hard to figure out the exact
focus distance due to the way markings are done.
* No tripod mount. Not a big problem unless you shoot at 300mm
at slower shutter speeds on a tripod. Actually, when mounted on an F5,
I wouldn't want a tripod mount at all, since this lens is so light the
weight of the camera body would be a problem. But with light camera
bodies, such as the N65/F65 or N80/F80, be careful at 300mm and
shutter speeds under 1/125.
* Softness at 300mm. You probably won't notice the softness as
much as the loss of contrast, especially if you compare results obtained
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

"albert" wrote in message
...
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.



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

On Jun 6, 4:40 pm, "albert" wrote:
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.

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.