Author Topic: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?  (Read 5782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mister V

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« on: October 29, 2009, 06:47:52 PM »
Hey guys!

I have been looking to buy a 70-300G SSM lens as i'm going on a Safari in a couple of months time.

I will of course need a lens with a focal range of up to 300mm. So I will definitely be going for the 70-300mm lens. My question now is (thought I would ask before potentially taking the plunge!):

- Should I go for the 70-300G or just a regular 70-300 (non-G)?

- Is there a written / visual comparison between the two lenses?

- Which is to be the sharper lens at a focal range of roughly 200-300mm?


Jessops' offer @ £499 for the 'G' lens is tempting, but wanted to know whether it is REALLY worth spending the extra £200-odd on this lens compared to the non-G lens.

Would really appreciate your input on this!

Many thanks,
V

:)

Offline Bigbreakfast

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Gender: Male
    • Paul O'Toole
    • Pj_otoole
    • @_Bigbreakfast
    • Flickr
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 06:57:53 PM »
If you can get the G for £500 grab it - huge difference
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
A700, sigma 70-200 2.8, sigma 105 macro, 70 -400 G, M42 lineup Helios F2 58mm, Carl Zeiss 50m F1.8, Pentax Super Takumar 135mm F3.5 - 'Be cruel, harsh, picky or just fussy - but when you critique my work please feel free to be honest!'

Offline KLarkin

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • should have been TRIPTEX. Klarkin or Kenny will do
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 07:01:03 PM »
The non G lens is a waste of glass IMO. I have the Sony 75-300DT lens and it is very soft. Do yourself the favor and get the G. This question was raised earlier this year and the unanimous opinion was to buy the 70-300G. The only complaint that user had was that he should have bough the 70-400G for the extra range. On safari there is no such thing as too much range.

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' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 07:07:23 PM »
The 70-300G will blow the non G out of the water, espescially at the 200-300mm range.
The non G version doesnt score that highly in a recent test of that range in digital photography, coming in behind teh Sigma 70-300 APO.


Rob

Offline REX (aka TG)

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Gender: Male
  • Life is short, enjoy it as much as you can!
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2009, 07:13:00 PM »
........G......G.......G.......G.........
aSLT/SLR/NEX,DYNAX

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 07:14:03 PM »
No doubt- G (if you can afford it).
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 JohnLarsen

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 08:00:11 PM »
I guess you have been on www.dyxum.com?

/john
a99 - a700(for sale) -  KM 50mm f1.7 + KM 28mm f2.8 + Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro "272" + Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 + Sony HVL-F60 flash + Vosonic 2160
Shoot 'em with a Sony, John

Offline mphotoservices

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 08:27:15 PM »
Easy G.    Seriously for what your probably spending to go on the trip what's an extra 200 for amazing pics vs average pics. Plus if you came back and decided to sell it you'll probably get 180 of that extra 200 back. No Brainer.
mphotoservices
A700 w/VG, A100 w/VG
Minolta 50 1.7, 28 2.8, 80-200 2.8 G,
Tokina ATX Pro 28-80 2.8, Sigma 10-20 4-5.6, Vivitar Series1 17-35 3.5-5.6
Sony 1-F58AM, 1-F56AM  2-Fong Light Spheres
Bogen, Manfrotto 3245, 3216 mono's, 3001, 3021 tri's, 3245 head, Kaiden Kiwi+ Nodel Pano head
Alien Bees 2-1600, 2-800, 4-400
Macbook Pro unibody loaded
And 1/2 a garage of othe

Offline Fud

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 3399
  • Gender: Male
    • ElmerFud on Flickr
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 08:30:53 PM »
Definitely worth it but you should seriously consider the 70-400G as it is yet another step up from the 70-300G.  Having owned both of them the 70-300 was a very nice lens but the 70-400 is outstanding.
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 Mister V

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2009, 11:00:51 PM »
Thank you all so much for your replies, greatly appreciated!

Doesn't sound like the 'non-G' lens stand up to much then eh!?

Does anyone know if there is a visual comparison between the two lenses?

@ JohnLarsen - Are you referring to the reviews on Dyxum? I've had a look at a few of them.


Offline Heidfirst

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2009, 11:20:45 PM »
Doesn't sound like the 'non-G' lens stand up to much then eh!?
it is what it is - a kit level telezoom. the G is in another class & very possibly "best of" at that level.

If £500 is a bit steep another option is a s/h Minolta/KM 100-300 APO which imo is better than the kit 75-300 but not as good as the G.
If you can afford & justify the cash though the 70-400 G SSM is the dog's danglies :D

Offline Bigbreakfast

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Gender: Male
    • Paul O'Toole
    • Pj_otoole
    • @_Bigbreakfast
    • Flickr
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2009, 11:26:58 PM »
FFordes have a minolta 100-300 APO in at the mo for £250 https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm
Have a look at London Camera exchange and a few of the other online camera shops and you might get a better deal. The other option is the 'big' beercan 75-300 4.5
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
A700, sigma 70-200 2.8, sigma 105 macro, 70 -400 G, M42 lineup Helios F2 58mm, Carl Zeiss 50m F1.8, Pentax Super Takumar 135mm F3.5 - 'Be cruel, harsh, picky or just fussy - but when you critique my work please feel free to be honest!'

Offline pointblank

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • loveanda35
    • Love and a 35
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2009, 08:28:19 AM »
G glass is absolutely magic. The only thing that bothers me, it's addictive .. !

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2009, 03:27:32 AM »
Having just moved from the SAL18250 to the 70-300 SSM G, I can add my "go for the G" voice to the horde.
It is light enough to be a carry around lens.  ( If you are big and strong or have a porter, by all means consider the 70-400G.  The extra length is nice but I am too puny to carry if far)...john
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz

Offline Mister V

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 'G' or 'Non-G' lens...?
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2009, 11:31:46 PM »
Some great replies here, thank you VERY much!

Looks like the 'G' lens is definitely the way to go!

:) :) :)