teleconverter or lens

[gdwikoff]

I have a 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 lens and am wondering if I would be better off buying a 3x teleconverter or maybe a 70-300mm lens. I take nature shots in the summer but am also puttering in my home studio with portraiture. Basically, I have the potential to earn money quicker with portraiture and have some seniors and a small wedding to photograph this spring. I am concerned about my CCD getting dirty switching lenses which is why I was I thought maybe a teleconverter would be a better route at this point. I won't be able to purchase a second camera for another year, at when plan to have a nice telephoto on one and my current lens on the other eliminating my CCD worries. Any thoughts on which way to go?

[Wichita Wayne]

When you use a zoom lens it acts like a piston suckingair into the camera and blowing it out as the lens works. So simply not changing lenses may not solve any dirt on CCD issues. You may just have to clean the CCD in accordance with the instructions is it gets dirty. As far as you lens delima goes I would take a look at the Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 G lens. I bought one new for about $130 dollars and it is a good lens. If you go to the photo gallery and look at my "turkey" picture you will see a picture that I took with this lens. It is light weight and solid. The G means that it is not manufactured with an apature ring on the lens, and must be used with a camera that can set the apature. The lens is also made with a lot of composite parts. Part of my lens mount looks like plastic. However, I have not noticed any difference in use except for the fact that it is much lighter.

[Iain]

I would agree with Wayne. I also have the 70-300 G lens. It is nice and light and gives good sharp results.

Iain

[ballroom_boy]

hi

I agree with Iain and Wayne. I have used both versions of the 70-300 - the "G" and the "D" version. The "D" version has a metal mount, but is much more expensive (2.5 times more). Also, there is an ED element in the "D" version, but I could not see any difference in imges produced by both lenses. And at about $110-130, the "G" is a good deal for one wanting that focal length range for little $$$.

My $0.02...

Cheers
Roel

[Tim]

I currently own both the "G" and "ED" variants of this lens. I feel that the "G" lens is very good for the money, but with my examples, the "ED" is considerably better.

The color rendition on the "ED" is much improved and while they both get soft towards the long end it is not as soft as the "G" version.

I found the "ED" used in mint condition for around $175- I wouldn't pay the $300 for it new...

I'll make a deal on the like new "G" if someone is interested!

Regards,


Tim