On 1 Nov 1998 01:54:58 GMT, andrsnsm@aol.com (Andrsnsm) wrote:

>Herman - I use both a very solid F3HP and a ugh plastic N70. The difference
>between the plastic body and the plastic lens is that the plastic body doesn't
>have the moving parts of the plastic lens. I am sure the 70-300 produces
>excellent images, as does the 75-300. I never said the 70-300 did not have
>excellent image quality. I can't say that because I have not personally shot
>with it. Have you used both lenses where you can make an apples to apples
>comparison. I would like to here what the differences are. If not, then how
>can you make the statement that the 70-300 has superior image quality? What I
>said is that in my opinion the 75-300 is better constructed. Does your opinion
>differ? I agree that the 70-300 is smaller and lighter as you state. I never
>said otherwise. But, would you not agree the tripod collar on the 75-300 comes
>in handy at the long end of the zoom. 300mm is pretty darn long to hand hold,
>even a light lens.

Hmmm, first off, since a few people have mentioned this, it is
actually easier to get sharp pictures at a given FL and shutter
speed with a lens that is physically longer and heavier...
(basic physics - though admittedly there is a shorter time
limit before needing to refresh oneself by lowering and
re-raising the heavier lens to avoid fatigue effects...).
I have not tried the two lenses side-by side, but I have
tried both, shooting the same targets. Contrary to most,
I preferred the one sample I tried of the 75-300 to the
three samples I tried of the 70-300 (I wanted this lens...).
The edges/corners of the older zoom appeared better to me
than the compromised edges/corners of the newer at wide
stops. If you like the performance of the 70-210 f4-5.6
Nikkor (I don't...), you will be happy with the new lens.