Nikon 75-300mm--the Best Buy for Price/Optics Ratio!

I already own several lenses that cover the 20-300mm focal range, but I still want to have a lighter general-purpose zoom as a spare and/or travel-light lens that also includes the 300mm end. The first zoom in this 70-300mm range I tried was a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I thought it was terrible. At 300mm with the lens stopped down to f/11 or even f/16 (with the camera securely mounted on a tripod) the image appears very fuzzy on my 8X12inch enlargement from a Fuji Velvia slide.

Then I tried the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED for myself, because, like the Nikon 24-120mm, there have been such controversial reviews on it. After two rolls of film, I was not really impressed by its optics either. Though I very much liked the color it produced (far better than the Tamron). It appeared to be sharper than the Tamron at the 300mm end, but still not quite sharp to be acceptable. So I tried the Nikon 75-300mm zoom. I was lucky to have found a new one in box, old stock. There were two of them and I requested to try them both.

In this review, I will discuss my impressions of this lens' performance and handling. In some cases, I will also make comparisons with the new Nikon 70-300mm ED lens and the Tamron. I would like to mention that for these tests and comparisons, I did not utilize any scientific testing method, such as, measurements of lines per millimeter, etc, etc. I simply choose an appropriate subject that I will likely be photographing (the practical subjects like buildings, people, landscapes) and look at the exposed slides on the light table with my 8x loupe to study the details produced by each lens.

Cosmetically, this zoom lens has quite a sold built, all metal construction for durability, far better than the Tamron and the ED version. It incorporates a push/pull zooming style. The zooming is very well damped with virtually no zoom "creep" when pointing straight down. It has a separate focusing ring with a focus limiter switch to increase the AF speed between 9.5 feet and infinity. It has a macro setting that allows close focusing to about 4.9 feet! Much like the ED version and the Tamron, the front barrel does rotate during focusing, which could impose a bit of problem with polarizing filter. It also has this annoying (for me) lens hood HN-24 that you have to screw it on top of the filter or over the front lens, which might accidentally scratch the front glass when in a hurry. The ED version, on the contrary, has a very nice twist-lock (Bayonet) mounting style, very quick and easy also for storing. The focusing is smooth with good damping.

Among the three zoom lenses, the 75-300mm has a built-in tripod collar. The tripod collar is a very valuable feature! It is quite small and very smooth to operate (with 360 degrees rotation). For a lens this long (which extends far out from the camera body), a tripod collar is a very important asset. Even though it is small, it does provide enough sturdiness; unless you photograph in a strong blowing wind, then it will be a bit shaky and may cause picture blur if a slow shutter speed is used. The lens balances quite well with most camera bodies when mounted on a tripod. I used it on the N90s, F100, F4 and F5, and it worked great.

The AF speed can be quite slow and somewhat noisy even with the F100 and F5. It is quite loud with the F4. The 70-300mm ED is less noisy and seems bit faster.

I really like this lens when it comes to image quality. This lens can and does produce sharp images with excellent color and detail! Its performance at the 300mm end is much better than the ED version and far better than the Tamron. At wide open (at f/5.6), this lens is the best in its class. It is consistently sharp at almost all aperture setting, with optimum results at f/8 - f/11 in the 75-200mm range. The exposure is also quite accurate in this range. Between 200-300mm it is a little bit underexposed; dialing in for a 1/3-stop compensation will take care of it. And for print film, this does not matter at all! At the 300mm end, it has virtually no distortion compared to the Tamron; the ED is also good in this regard. The Tamron has the worse pincushion at the 200mm and toward the 300mm. There is a noticeable barrel distortion at the 75mm end, but far better that the Tamron. I had compared results of the two AF 75-300mm zoom lenses side by side and could not tell them apart, which lead me to believe that this lens is built with good consistency, optically and mechanically.

With the Nikon F5, the minimum aperture can go down to f/40 compared to the ED’s f/45. Nevertheless, this does not prove to be of any useful since images cannot be that sharp beyond f/22. Flare is very well controlled at all apertures. Noticeable ghosting when bright sun is in or near the frame; Tamron is the worst in this situation. The overall performance of this lens is excellent! It is optically the best among the trio (ED version, Tamron and non-ED), although the Nikon ED is not that far behind. (But in terms of sharpness, it makes me think if the Nikon ED zoom really has those ED glasses in it).

With a Nikon close-up diopter 5T or 6T (62mm filter size), the Nikon 75-300mm can be a versatile zoom lens! It also performs well for close-up photography. The Tamron does not have this advantage because it uses 58mm filter size. (Of course, we can use a 58mm-62mm step-up ring for 5T or 6T, but a closeup diopter performs better if it is close to the front glass element of the lens, and this ring makes the diopter further away from it).

With the Tamron eliminated from the list, the practical question is, which one is a better buy? The Nikon 75-300mm or the Nikon 70-300mm ED? Optically, the 75-300mm is no doubt the better choice. I think the answer also depends on your shooting style, if you are willing to sacrifice a bit of optical quality in favor of the lighter and smaller of the ED version. Below is a list of PROS and CONS between the two lenses.

Nikon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6

PROS:
1) Good sturdy built, metal construction--durability and handling
2) Useful tripod collar—handholding is still very comfortable!
3) Overall excellent image quality throughout, especially at the 300mm-end, better than the ED and third party lens.

CONS:
1) Slow AF response and a bit noisy
2) Rotating front barrel
3) Screw-in lens hood

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED

PROS:
1) Small and Light-weight—good for travel (with a 28-70mm or 28-80mm lens)
2) Bayonet lens hood mounting style for ease of use and for storing.
3) AF response seems a bit fast compared to the non-ED.
4) Has “D” technology for distance information—do you really need this?

CONS:
1) Construction is mostly plastic, inferior to the well sturdy built of the 75-300mm.
2) No tripod collar—for landscape shooters, you know how difficult it is to shoot in vertical format with the camera-and-lens slop to the side of the tripod.
3) Average in terms of image quality—The 75-300mm is indeed better!
4) Rotating front barrel

I have decided to leave out the comparison between the new rotating zooming style of the ED version and the push/pull style of the 75-300mm, as I really don’t see any relevance in it. The more you use it the more you are at ease using it. I own both the push/pull and rotating zooming style lenses, and I welcome both.

By weighing all the PROS and CONS between the two lenses, I think the Nikon 75-300mm is the better choice, especially in terms of optical quality and built. I rated this lens by giving it 5 stars, because I appreciate the tripod collar, the sturdy built and the image quality to price ratio ($200-$250). I would recommend it to anyone looking for those featured qualities in a Nikon lens with a reasonable price. For this lens, I really think that you get more than what you pay for. In terms of weight and size, the 75-300mm is about 11 ounces heavier and almost 2 inches longer than the ED version. Is it really worth it to sacrifice the optical quality by choosing the ED version? For me, I really don't think so.

Currently, you can readily find the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED on the market. Finding the 75-300mm is a different story, since now it is being replaced by the ED version. And if you see one, grab it!

Update: December 2002

I own two zoom lenses in this focal range: the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D and this 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6. Before the 75-300mm zoom, I used to lug my big 80-200mm zoom with me to everywhere. Now I find that my 75-300mm can perform the same job for nature photography, in addition to the advantage of its long reach at the 300mm end. Most importantly it is light and portable. In terms of f-stop and AF speed, it is slow, but for nature photography I almost always photograph with my camera/lens securely mounted on a tripod and focus manually, and therefore the faster speed of the 80-200mm is not necessary. The fact is that an image of a distant tree produced by both lenses is as sharp and contrasty. Now the 75-300mm zoom has become my primary lens for nature photography when I don't anticipate the need for speed or for handheld shots. Of course, I still use my big 80-200mm zoom for a number of other applications. But for my day-in and day-out nature photography, the 75-300mm zoom offers such a great package.

My point in this update is to stress further that this is indeed an awesome zoom lens, producing quite a competitive optics in this focal range and speed. It also offers the most useful focal range and excellent built and handling for long lasting use or abuse. I highly recommend that you get this zoom lens if you see one.