Author Topic: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison  (Read 5899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mister V

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« on: November 16, 2009, 01:23:10 PM »
Hey everyone, I had asked some questions here as to whether there was a comparison to the 70-300 G and a 75-300 non-G. After watching the tumbleweed fly past I realised that there wasn't one (or wasn't one pointed out to me!) so I decided to do one of my own to help others out.

I'm in the market to buy a zoom lens for my A200 and with it being my first 'proper' lens purchase, I wanted to be 100% sure that I was spending the right money in the right places.

Please note, I am no where near a professional photographer and am merely a 'newbie' looking to get serious about photography. The following pictures are to be used as a guideline purpose only yadda yadda yadda.

So onto the review....

I went to a Jessops store in London and asked to try these lenses out. Let me point out here that these guys were EXTREMELY friendly and couldn't have been more helpful if I had asked them to be! I told them that I was going on Safari and that I was looking for a zoom lens of either the 70-300G or the 75-300.

Here is a picture taken at 70mm with the G lens:



And the same picture taken again at 75mm with the Non-G lens:



Already we can see that the G lens has a much better contrast in the pictures on the wall as well being sharper in image.

I need a lens that is going to be sharp even at 300mm, so let's test the two lenses out at this range:

70-300G at 300mm:



and the 75-300 Non G at 300mm:



Again, we can see that the Non-G lens is lacking clarity in its pictures and is looking rather dull compared to the sharpness and colours given by the G lens...
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 01:34:32 PM by Mister V 22 »

Offline Mister V

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2009, 01:23:35 PM »
To show more of a difference between the two lenses, here is a 100% crop of the last image. I've cropped it in such a way that you will get text as well as colour from the Sunflower in the image.

G lens:



Non-G lens:



From these pictures you can see just how grainy the 75-300 lens is at a 300mm crop. Whereas the 70-300G lens is still very sharp and provides great colour from the sunflower.

FINAL VERDICT:

My purpose for buying a lens of this type is to go on Safari and will be used to photograph wildlife afterwards. I need something that is going to be sharp and consistent all the way through the range and although the price is good for the 75-300 Non-G lens, unfortunately the same cannot be said about its picture quality when comparing it to the 70-300G lens.

I now understand what users on this forum mean when they described the 70-300G lens as being in a "league of its own". I guess I needed to see the physical evidence of this.

One thing I should add is that the 75-300 was considerably better in the low-light condition but still provided the grainy pictures against the G lens. Whilst the shooting conditions were not the most ideal (inside a store!), it gave me a great idea as to what to expect from both lenses.

My mind is definitely made up now and I will be parting with the best part of £500 to buy the 70-300G lens.

I hope you find this little comparison of some use!

V

:)

Offline dominicall

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Gender: Male
    • Visible Pixels
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2009, 01:43:12 PM »
Good post Mister V - I'm sure others will find it useful.

Dominic
a900+VG + A700
CZ24-70, Sony 70-200G, Sony 70-300G, Sony 135 STF, CZ85mm, KM 20mm, KM 24mm RS, KM 17-35G, KM 400/4.5G HS, Tamron 90mm Macro, Sony 50 1.4, Sony 16mm Fisheye
Sony HVLF58AM, HVLF42AM
-------------
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.

Offline Fud

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 3399
  • Gender: Male
    • ElmerFud on Flickr
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2009, 04:08:35 PM »

I now understand what users on this forum mean when they described the 70-300G lens as being in a "league of its own". I guess I needed to see the physical evidence of this.

My mind is definitely made up now and I will be parting with the best part of £500 to buy the 70-300G lens.

:)


"a league of it's own" probably applies more to the 70-400G and if you are going on safari would recommend it over the 70-300 as the extra range and sharper images will make the extra investment worthwhile (I owned a 70-300 before switching to the 70-400 when it came out and have never regretted it and it is my most used lens by a country mile)
A900+VG, A77+VG, Minolta 17-35G,  Sony CZ24-70 F2.8,Sony 70-200 F2.8 SSM, Sony 70-400 SSM, Sony 135STF,85 F1.4, 200 F4 Macro, 600 F4 HS APO

Offline bathala77

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2009, 05:39:16 PM »
thanks a lot for this comparison!

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2009, 06:21:33 PM »
Yes thanks- very useful. I had no doubt though that the G lens is the better one but it is great to see it proven.
Stef.
Stef.'s photographs

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/]flickr


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline PhilBee

  • I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure these days.....
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2009, 07:36:50 PM »
Many thanks V! I have the 75-300 but really wanted the G lens. I have wondered just how much I actually needed the G lens and would I really notice enough difference to justify the extra cash . Now I know and want one!!
Phil 
A77, CZ 16-80, 70-300G, SAL 16-50, Tamron 90mm macro, plus other bits including a Manfrotto 290 3 legged thingy.
Sleaford, Lincolnshire. UK.
My other hobby is a 1976 Signal Red Triumph Spitfire!

Phil's Flickr

Offline Rob aka [minolta mad]

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 10061
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1260183143#!/profile.php?id=1494244129
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/robkendall/
    • http://www.redbubble.com/people/minoltamad
    • Westcountry Photographic
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2009, 08:04:14 PM »
Great comparison test, really goes to show the difference between the two.
The sharness wasnt really a surprise, but the contrast in colours was.


Rob

Offline LyleG

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
    • My Flikr, feel free to poke around
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2009, 10:52:51 PM »
Having owned a 70-300G, 2 beercans and now a 55-200 I will say the difference is far overstated.

For shots printed at 11x14 or less there is virtually no difference between any of the lenses. For poster size prints sure there "might" be a difference, but for the average person making smallish prints the need for "G" type glass is way, way overstated.
Sigma 10-20 - CZ16-80 - Tamron 70-200/2.8 - Minolta 28/2.8 - Sony 50/1.8 - Kenko teleplus 300 1.4 TC - extension tubes - HVL42 (x2)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lylegenykphotography/

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2009, 12:24:07 AM »
Great comparison and thanks.  I (we) actually own both but I have never gotten around to making a comparison.
I have not used the Sigma 50-500 since getting the "G" either and a comparison of image quality (suitably sized of course) is on my "do oneday" list.

Take onboard Fud's comment too although the 70-400G is a bit heavy to carry around all day (much like the big Sigma)...john
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz

Offline philjo

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2009, 07:57:04 PM »
Useful comparison.
Presumably the lighting inside the store was rather harsh.
I am wondering how the G lens performs in low light - as that is when I am likely to want to use it (e.g. plays, etc). 
The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 looks like the other option for me.

Offline philjo

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2009, 08:09:45 PM »
Quick query:
Is there a chart anywhere for the 70-300G lens showing the aperture at various focal lengths?
It would be useful to know for example the aperture at 125mm & 200mm ranges.

Many thanks,
Jeremy

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2009, 09:01:53 PM »
It only ranges from 4.5 to 5.6 anyway so not much latitude to plot on a chart...john
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz

Offline PhilBee

  • I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure these days.....
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2009, 09:07:40 PM »
A77, CZ 16-80, 70-300G, SAL 16-50, Tamron 90mm macro, plus other bits including a Manfrotto 290 3 legged thingy.
Sleaford, Lincolnshire. UK.
My other hobby is a 1976 Signal Red Triumph Spitfire!

Phil's Flickr

Offline philjo

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: 'G' lens & 'Non-G' Comparison
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2009, 04:57:45 PM »
Thanks for that Phil,

Jeremy