Digital SLR help

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Jimmy2Feet

Another quick question. going for a 55-300 am i also right in thinking that the extra wouldn't be all that noticable? and again quality would drop?

Depends on the Lens I would have thought. I have a 70-300mm and the quality of pictures that produces even at full zoom, is far superior to the quality of pictures that my 55-200mm used to produce...

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Depends on the Lens I would have thought. I have a 70-300mm and the quality of pictures that produces even at full zoom, is far superior to the quality of pictures that my 55-200mm used to produce...

Really, how much did you pay for you 55-300 fizz if you dont mind me asking?

I have the same 70-300 Fizz is talking about and it is a lot better than the "standard" 55-200, build and image quality wise. It also has VR II, which is slightly better than the 55-200's VR system. I think it can be found for £379-399 if you shop around.
It's not the 55-300, though, it's the 70-300.

The 55-300 is a new model, destined to fill the gap (if there was one...) between the 55-200 and 70-300. Unfortunately, it's closer in (lack of) features to the 55-200 and closer in price to the 70-300, which (to me) makes it a bit of an odd choice.
I do get what they were trying to do with it, the 70-300 being a full frame lens is considerably heavier than the 55-200, but it also sports "full" AF-S system, with instant manual focus override, which is something you can't do with the 55-200 / 55-300 without having to move a switch on the lens. That alone is worth the extra price / weight for me, but I can also see how this wouldn't affect a new user and how the extra 100 mm over the 55-200 will be enough to justify the increase in price.

I haven't used it yet though, but IIRC first reports were saying image quality wise it's more or less the same ballpark as the 55-200. As for the effect of those extra 100 mm, let's put it this way: if something would look 1000 px tall on a photo at 200mm, it'll now look 1500 px tall at 300mm. It's not all roses though, a longer focal length will be harder to hand hold and focus tracking will be a lot more difficult (you don't have as much margin to wobble around as your angle of view will be smaller), but the solution to that is simple: back out the zoom and practice some more.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Jimmy2Feet

Really, how much did you pay for you 55-300 fizz if you dont mind me asking?

Its a 70-30mm Nikor VR DX, IIRC I paid £350 for it on special in Jessops but that was 2 1/2 years ago. Last time I looked it was more expensive i.e. aorund the £420 mark...

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Its a 70-30mm Nikor VR DX, IIRC I paid £350 for it on special in Jessops but that was 2 1/2 years ago. Last time I looked it was more expensive i.e. aorund the £420 mark...

I got one beginning of november just gone, reserve and pay in store from jessops price £407.
I think they are £440 now.

Still at £399 on Grays, I got mine earlier last year for £379 on Amazon.

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Still at £399 on Grays, I got mine earlier last year for £379 on Amazon.

I did find it cheaper online, but i wanted to pick it up from a store and they were the cheapest store local to me.

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Its a 70-30mm Nikor VR DX, IIRC I paid £350 for it on special in Jessops but that was 2 1/2 years ago. Last time I looked it was more expensive i.e. aorund the £420 mark...

It's FX, Fizz
The full name for the beast is AF-S NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR.

In case everyone's wondering:
AF-S: AutoFocus with ultrasonic SWM (Silent Wave Motor);
G: No aperture ring, aperture needs to be set on body;
IF: Internal Focusing, nothing moves externally as it focus;
ED: Extra Dispersion glass somewhere inside the lens, meaning improved chromatic aberration control;
VR: Vibration Reduction, provides some optical stabilization.

... I need to get a life.

so the lenses that are not a g model, you can alter the aperture on the lense, instead of the body?

Originally Posted by bluefishman

so the lenses that are not a g model, you can alter the aperture on the lense, instead of the body?

That will depend on the body / lens itself...
If it's a CPU lens (I believe all AF-D lenses are), it'll depend on the body:
Older film bodies (F70, F90x for instance) don't have a way of setting the aperture on the body, so you'll have to set it on the lens, hence G lenses being only half usable on those bodies (S and P modes only, or A and M at fully open aperture).
Newer film and digital bodies will depend on having a custom function that will allow you to set the aperture on the lens itself. As an example, my F100 has it, but the F80, D60 and D90 don't. When the body doesn't have the custom function, you will have to set the lens to it's minimum aperture (f/16 or f/22, usually) and use the dial on the camera to set the desired values.

With non-CPU lens (usually the manual focus AI-S kind, though there are some with CPU), you'll have to do it on the lens on every body, film or digital.

Slightly confusing to explain on a general basis, but quite easy to understand on a case by case basis. HTH.