Best 70-300mm for a crop?

[Energize]

I'm looking for a 70-300 lens for a Nikon crop for my dad and was wondering what the best lens is currently? I used to own the FX Nikon VR AF-S lens but I believe that Nikon have released a DX version recently which I presume will be smaller and sharper? I know that using an FX lens on a DX body reduces sharpness because it crops the image circle, so I would imagine the DX version produces sharper images?

Though the advantage of the FX version is that I could borrow it on occasion.

 

[Amp34]

You have it (broadly) the wrong way round. Generally (all other things being equal) the FX lens on a DX body will be sharper across the image than a dedicated DX lens. The DX camera will only be using the centre of the FX lens, meaning you're not using the edges that are usually less sharp and more distorting.

That said there's a whole myriad of other reasons one lens may be sharper than another, for starters the age of the lens. If the DX lens is newer than the FX lens it may well have better centre sharpness and AF speed, but may not be as good across the frame as the FX lens on DX.

At a guess the new DX will be sharper in the centre and softer at the edges, with possibly more distortion and CA than the FX on DX. None of that necessarily matters on a zoom lens however as generally you're using it for wildlife which is usually close to the centre of the frame.

 

[D.P.]

As above, in generely an FX lens will be sharper on a DX body than a DX lens,a ll things being equal. thsi was certainly the case witht he 70-300mm AF-S VR1 vs the 55-300mm AF-S VR1 DX lenses.

Very recently Nikon has released a new 70-300mm AF-P VR DX lenses, note the change in focal length from the older 55-300 DX and the change to the newer AF-P using stepper motors. The AF-P will only focus on certain newer cameras. 70mm is not as nice a focal length to work form compared to the original 55mm when using a crop body. In regards to sharpness, it is likely the sharpest of the lot, althoguh Nikon will likely update the 70-300mm FX version which will be better still.

 

[Holst1981]

If your using a dx camera the new 70-300 dx vr is good value for money.

Just be careful that they will work on your camera as they are not compatible with many older cameras.

 

[Energize]

You have it (broadly) the wrong way round. Generally (all other things being equal) the FX lens on a DX body will be sharper across the image than a dedicated DX lens. The DX camera will only be using the centre of the FX lens, meaning you're not using the edges that are usually less sharp and more distorting.

That said there's a whole myriad of other reasons one lens may be sharper than another, for starters the age of the lens. If the DX lens is newer than the FX lens it may well have better centre sharpness and AF speed, but may not be as good across the frame as the FX lens on DX.

At a guess the new DX will be sharper in the centre and softer at the edges, with possibly more distortion and CA than the FX on DX. None of that necessarily matters on a zoom lens however as generally you're using it for wildlife which is usually close to the centre of the frame.

What I meant is an FX lens produces lower resolution images on a crop body than a full frame body. Which is why I was wondering whether the newer DX version might be better.

I assumed that DX lenses would essentially just be the centre cut-out of an FX lens, but I guess that manufactures cheap out and make a miniaturized version of an FX lens with the same crap edge coverage? What on earth is the point in their existence if they produce inferior image quality and don't work with FX bodies? Might as well just buy FX lenses!

As above, in generely an FX lens will be sharper on a DX body than a DX lens,a ll things being equal. thsi was certainly the case witht he 70-300mm AF-S VR1 vs the 55-300mm AF-S VR1 DX lenses.

Very recently Nikon has released a new 70-300mm AF-P VR DX lenses, note the change in focal length from the older 55-300 DX and the change to the newer AF-P using stepper motors. The AF-P will only focus on certain newer cameras. 70mm is not as nice a focal length to work form compared to the original 55mm when using a crop body. In regards to sharpness, it is likely the sharpest of the lot, althoguh Nikon will likely update the 70-300mm FX version which will be better still.

I very much doubt the lens will be used at the wide end.

Why does the AF-P only work on newer bodies? Nikon seem to be such a pain for lens compatibility, they release bodies which lack the AF motor to work with some of the great older lenses, then they release G lenses without the aperture rings, now they release another type of lens which doesn't work on older cameras, it's positively a minefield compared to Canon lenses which just work.

Using the F mount consistently since the 1950's is ultimately pointless if the lenses don't work when mounted. Let's hope the obsolescence of SLR's and change to mirrorless will finally see a change in mount which doesn't have the limitations of the F mount and a range of lenses which all work with every body in the future.

EDIT - Looks like that piece of dog **** AF-P lens is out of the question then because it's listed as incompatible with the body. The D7000 isn't exactly an old camera ffs. The whole reason he's using it is in the first place is because the newer bodies don't work with the older lenses.

 

[Amp34]

Not sure what you mean by lower resolution. That would presumably depend on the camera resolution and pixel density over anything to do with the lens (for example a DX with 16MP vs an FX with 24 MP)?

The point of Dx lenses is they have less glass in them, meaning they are smaller and lighter for a given aperture and focal length. Outside of the 17-55 f/2.8 Dx lens almost all DX/crop lenses seem to be aimed at the the lower end market - somewhat annoyingly IMO as I shoot with a D7000. That means they're also made of plastics and don't have the same options as the more expensive FX models - for example the 70-300 being discussed doesn't even have manual VR or AF switchs on the lens. That also makes them lighter.

They are some of the reasons outside of the 17-55 I have a fairly large set of FX lenses rather than a load of DX lenses for my D7000.

 

[D.P.]

Canon lenses are no different for autofocus comparability. The big difference is Nikon goes a long way to supporting backwards compatibility which n and some very old lenses can be used with very new cameras. With Canon you just throw away your old glass as they make it obsolete. You can get the same experience in Nikon by simply not buying old lenses.

Nikon AF-P lenses are equivalent to Canon STM,main benefits are for video and live view.

 

[Amp34]

Other than EF-S which is just the crop version of the mount, but backwards compatible with EF lenses the last time Canon made anything incompatible was when they changed to the EF mount in 1987.

That's perhaps Nikons biggest issue, they should have done something similar, rather than trying to work around issues their mount has, causing various forms of incompatibility along the way. That said part of the problem with Nikon appears to be cost cutting to make cameras/lenses more appealing and low budget (removal of AF motors and now VR buttons etc).

 

[a1ex2001]

Other than EF-S which is just the crop version of the mount, but backwards compatible with EF lenses the last time Canon made anything incompatible was when they changed to the EF mount in 1987.

That's perhaps Nikons biggest issue, they should have done something similar, rather than trying to work around issues their mount has, causing various forms of incompatibility along the way. That said part of the problem with Nikon appears to be cost cutting to make cameras/lenses more appealing and low budget (removal of AF motors and now VR buttons etc).

Which was when they introduced AF, I always thought it was a pretty bold move to launch an entirely new mount at that point and risk alienating all there existing customers. Seems to have been a massive success though and has allowed them to develop there lenses without all the legacy support issues that using the old mount would have brought. It's nice knowing that if you buy a Canon EF lens it will work on any autofocus canon body ever made.

 

[D.P.]

Other than EF-S which is just the crop version of the mount, but backwards compatible with EF lenses the last time Canon made anything incompatible was when they changed to the EF mount in 1987.

That's perhaps Nikons biggest issue, they should have done something similar, rather than trying to work around issues their mount has, causing various forms of incompatibility along the way. That said part of the problem with Nikon appears to be cost cutting to make cameras/lenses more appealing and low budget (removal of AF motors and now VR buttons etc).

But that is exactly the point. Nikon could have changed mounts, made all the old lenses obsolete and then no one would complain. Instead they tried to maintain backwards compatibility as much as possible so people could use old lenses on new cameras. Nikon didn't cost cut by keeping he mount, they ahd to put much more engineering intot ehcameras and elsnes in roder to maintain backwards compatibility. That was done in order to make people with large Nikkor collections appreciate the Nikon system. no one forces you to buy old glass, it is just a nice benefit

 

[D.P.]

Which was when they introduced AF, I always thought it was a pretty bold move to launch an entirely new mount at that point and risk alienating all there existing customers. Seems to have been a massive success though and has allowed them to develop there lenses without all the legacy support issues that using the old mount would have brought. It's nice knowing that if you buy a Canon EF lens it will work on any autofocus canon body ever made.

If you buy a Nikon AF-S lens it will work on any Nikon DSLR ever made. Moreover, you can buy any older Nikon lens and it will wokr on any newer nikon camera, soemthign the Canon system lacks.

 

[Amp34]

But that is exactly the point. Nikon could have changed mounts, made all the old lenses obsolete and then no one would complain. Instead they tried to maintain backwards compatibility as much as possible so people could use old lenses on new cameras. Nikon didn't cost cut by keeping he mount, they ahd to put much more engineering intot ehcameras and elsnes in roder to maintain backwards compatibility. That was done in order to make people with large Nikkor collections appreciate the Nikon system. no one forces you to buy old glass, it is just a nice benefit

By cost cutting I meant their lower end cameras and the removal of the AF motor

 

[a1ex2001]

If you buy a Nikon AF-S lens it will work on any Nikon DSLR ever made. Moreover, you can buy any older Nikon lens and it will wokr on any newer nikon camera, soemthign the Canon system lacks.

I isn't think that was the case I thought there were exceptions for bodies without focus motors and then these new lenses they have released guess I was wrong!

 

[Energize]

If you buy a Nikon AF-S lens it will work on any Nikon DSLR ever made. Moreover, you can buy any older Nikon lens and it will wokr on any newer nikon camera, soemthign the Canon system lacks.

That's not true, non AF-S lenses will not focus on many newer bodies which makes them effectively useless. I have made extensnsive use of the 80-200 f/2.8 on the D7000.

We now have a situation where cameras like the D3200 will not work with older AF or newer AF-P lenses, absolutely terrible descision from Nikon!