Lens Question ~ Nikon

[Warren]

Looking for someone to be able to explain to me in lamen terms the difference is between the Nikon 18-105 f3.5 kit lens, and the Nikon 70-300 f3.5 zoom lens. Now I am refering more to the quality of the lens, and not the focal distances or aperature. The one thing I do not understand is the ring on the kit lens is way different than that on the zoom, in other words, it has a little window while the kit lens does not.

Does that indicate anything substantial, (weather proofing, focusing speed) or am I just looking too deep into this? I noticed that other lens have that 'window' as well, and I am thinking that it may have something to do with over all lens quality.

If someone can answer that, I would be appreciated, especially if you even can understand my giberish.

Warrn

[IanCD]

The 'window' opens onto the 'distance scale'... if the lens has one (most have). The scale indicates the distance to the focused point; on older lenses the distance scale also indicated depth of field for given apertures.

The 18-105 f3.5-5.6G doesn't have a distance scale - see review on Photozone, here

The 70-300 is a very different lens! PZ review is here

Ian

[Black Pearl]

The AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED is technically a higher grade lens that is closer overall to the AF-S VR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED.

Nothing wrong with the 18-105 for the price and it makes a nice alternative to the usual 18-55mm kit lens. The two above have metal mounts not plastic ones, actually the entire build is more substantial. The optics are also superior and in the case of the 70-300mm it is a FX lens not a DX one so is compatible with the higher priced bodies. Of course all that comes with a price, both are in excess of £200 more expensive to buy.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Warren,

I had no idea the 18-105mm didn't even have a distance scale (I don't own one), it seems like cost cutting gone mad, but to be honest, for most I'd suggest it is of little consequence in the real world.

I rarely glance at the scale of my 70-300mm and it is so compressed as to be unusable for anything other than 'get you in the ball park' area for manual focusing.

According to the review, the 18-105mm does still send the camera EXIF data for focus distance, as does my 70-300mm, but when it says "6.31m", I have to say that sounds overly 'accurate' for real life but since I don't use it as a tape measure, I don't care ....

Cheers,