Image Quality of Lenses...

[jprzybyla]

Otavio recently asked me if the image quality of my Nikon 70-300mm lens was better than my Nikon 55-300mm lens. The 70-300mm is what one may call a pro lens while the 55-300 is considered a kit lens. The easiest way I can show that there is very little difference is to post images taken with the lenses. With good technique and good post processing all are excellent for image quality. The separation between the lenses is in the build quality and the tools they offer. To me the biggest advantage of the 70-300 ( and why I bought it ) is the focus distance window and the manual override of the auto focus. The focus distance window allows one to easily glance down to see to what distance the focus is set. The manual override of the autofocus allows one to quickly choose a distance close to where the camera needs to focus.

Images with the Nikon 55-200mm





Images with the Nikon 55-300mm





Images with the Nikon 70-300mm





There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use.

[chauncey]

There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use.

In spite of me being a Canon user, I would totally agree with that assessment. It would be akin to identifying a camera from a print.

[Shadowman]

Nice series. Although the focus distance window on the 70-300mm lens is nice to have, it does have its limitations and I find I rarely use it in the field, I would prefer that distance was recorded within exif data.

[jprzybyla]

Nice series. Although the focus distance window on the 70-300mm lens is nice to have, it does have its limitations and I find I rarely use it in the field, I would prefer that distance was recorded within exif data.

Hi John, here is how I use the distance window. Suppose I have just shot a bird in flight ( which I normall shoot from 40 feet to infinity ). So the focusing distance is set to a distance of the last shot. Now I see a dragonfly I want to photograph ( I shoot these at the minimum focusing distance of about 5 feet ). For the camera to focus from near infinity to 5 feet it has to do a lot of searching, most time you cannot find the dragonfly in the viewfinder because it is so out of focus. So, I look at the distance window scale and manually set the focus at about 5 feet then look for the dragonfly in the viewfinder. After capturing the dragonfly I look in the focus distance window and reset the focus distance to between 40 feet and infinity ready for the next bird in flight. I am using it to set a pre-focusing distance to save time and help the cameara.

[JR1]

Nikon 70-300 "PRO" lens

NO, if so why do I pay what I do for my Pro lenses

Nikkor 28-300 (£600) and 80-400 (NANO, not the cheaper 80-400) (£1,800) then

Whilst the 70-300 may well be described as a good lens, by no stretch of the imagination does it come even close to a "pro" lens

Pro lenses are able to be used in most situations including rain, dust etc, don't do that with a 70-300, they are also built for abuse and extended use and use better focus and faster.

They also have "N", Nano crystal technology

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/20/


You also say

"There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use."

Errrrrr....................

As someone who shoots for a living, be careful of making sweeping statements, whilst I do agree to a large extent, can you justify the "more"

[JR1]

Hi John, here is how I use the distance window. Suppose I have just shot a bird in flight ( which I normall shoot from 40 feet to infinity ). So the focusing distance is set to a distance of the last shot. Now I see a dragonfly I want to photograph ( I shoot these at the minimum focusing distance of about 5 feet ). For the camera to focus from near infinity to 5 feet it has to do a lot of searching, most time you cannot find the dragonfly in the viewfinder because it is so out of focus. So, I look at the distance window scale and manually set the focus at about 5 feet then look for the dragonfly in the viewfinder. After capturing the dragonfly I look in the focus distance window and reset the focus distance to between 40 feet and infinity ready for the next bird in flight. I am using it to set a pre-focusing distance to save time and help the cameara.

You mean

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...calculator.htm

Or in other words "Hyperfocal distance"

In other words varying the combination of shutter speed/apature/ISO

[JR1]

In spite of me being a Canon user, I would totally agree with that assessment. It would be akin to identifying a camera from a print.

?

As the statement is in fact untrue

[Otavio]

Joe, I like that you brought this to a thread so other people here can also have your feedback and the images comparisson. I was really curious about the possible difference in image quality of Nikon 70-300 over the Nikon 55-300, because there should be some, at least in theory. Why? Because the 70-300 is a FX lens, so, when mounted on a crop sensor (like my D5200 and your D7000) it uses the center portion of the glass, i.e., where the lens produces its best, in terms os image quality.

Anyway, I totally agree with you that before this theoretical difference takes place, a fairly good use of light, knowing how to position ourselves, a good PP technique will impact the image quality much more. So, when one is at the point he is confident that he is doing a good capture job in the field and obtaining the most of the PP techniques and still wants more quality, maybe a USD5.000++ top glass will come in hand.

Just to avoid being misunderstood here: I am pretty much aware that a D4S + prime 600mm F4 would give me huge gains over my D5200 + 70-300 F4-5.6, but my question to Joe was about a "more affordable" range of lenses (the Nikon 70-300 is about USD500-600 and the 55-300 about USD300 ).

Again, Joe, thanks for opening this point to our colleagues here.

Cheers,

[qbengnpre49]

a nice shot!

[Brev00]

These shots do put both lenses in good light. Which may be an issue with the comparison. When I was buying my telephoto, I read that the 55-300 had problems focusing in low light particularly with action shots. I bought my Tamron 70-300 vc specifically for those indoor, low light conditions. My daughter skates competitively. So, I have no idea if the 55-300 can actually perform in those conditions since the reviews consistently favored a 70-300 for low light action leading me to make that choice. I have enjoyed shooting in low light, indoors and out, ever since.

[chauncey]

As the statement is in fact untrue

Can you substantiate that statement?

[NorthernFocus]

...There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use.

While this is generally true and while you posted this thread with a specific comparison, lest inexperienced people read too much into this, I feel compelled to chime in.

Joe, it is ironic that you posted this thread. Because IMO you are currently equipment limited. Your field, equipment , and PP skills far exceed the capability of your equipment. And if that is by conscious decision, there is nothing wrong with that. If you get what you need out of your gear that's what it is all about. Though even a relatively inexpensive AF-S 300mm f4 would do wonders for you.

In the context of a learning forum, there does come a time when equipment becomes a limit. Usually not as soon as many people think. But for anyone who thinks they might be there I suggest renting some pro level gear for a few days. Renting is a relatively inexpensive way to find out. If you shoot high end gear for a few days and don't see a marked improvement in IQ, then you've still got work to do on your technique.

People who make a living at photography don't pay for high end gear because they have money to burn. There is a return on the investment.

[JR1]

Can you substantiate that statement?

The comment was that the 75-300 is a "pro" lens, as 99.9% of photographers who know will tell you it is not, and is not claimed to be by the manufacturer therefore what I said is fact. Nothing more to substantiate here

[chauncey]

As Strother Martin once said...What we have here is a failure to communicate" as I was referring to this statement.

There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use.

When I made this comment

In spite of me being a Canon user, I would totally agree with that assessment. It would be akin to identifying a camera from a print.

I fail to understand how you made the error that you did make when saying this.

As the statement is in fact untrue

It was you that misconstrued what I said.

[rtbaum]

One does sorta wonder, with your technique and post processing skills, what you could do with the finest 400mm Nikon lens.

[JR1]

If you are refering to this comment then you should have stated that in your initial response

There is more image quality loss due to poor technique in the field and poor post processing than by what lens you use.

My reply was in fact the same as your comment to me. This is a sweeping statement with no statistical backing, whatsoever.

I have no time to respond further as I am a busy person as can be seen from my sites.

[FrankMi]

Another lovely set of images Joe. What kind of bird is in the second image? I love the blue coloring.

[Mike Buckley]

If you shoot high end gear for a few days and don't see a marked improvement in IQ, then you've still got work to do on your technique.

Would you expect to see the difference only in large prints or also when displaying the images on your monitor?

[Mike Buckley]

I have no time to respond further as I am a busy person as can be seen from my sites.

Wow.

[NorthernFocus]

Would you expect to see the difference only in large prints or also when displaying the images on your monitor?

The difference is apparent under critical analysis with the medium of choice. But if by "on your monitor" you mean reduced to typical web resolution, then the differences pretty much go away. By all means if one only produces images for posting at typical web resolution or printing no larger than 8x10/8x12in, the expense of high end gear is not warranted.