rmichaud I admire your resolve in making a switch from canon to nikon. Hope you can build up your lens collection soon. You have made a great start. That 50G is a wonder of a lens.

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome, rmichaud, to the forum. I'm glad you're liking your D3s. I haven't heard many complaints from owners about that one. Happy shooting with your new nikon. Just curious, did you consider/try the 5DII?

aslightdelay said:
Are the FX lenses better engineered than their DX counterparts?

For the most part within time frames. Currently FX is the Pro choice format so almost all of the current FX lenses in Nikon's line up are top of the line lenses. The caveat to this are older film era lenses that are also "FX"/full frame I.e. for film. There are many older film lenses that are "kit" lenses and although not terrible, they are not the top of the line either.

Rockwell cracks me up with his hidden humor - I highly doubt it actually stands for gelded since that is an "Old English" term and I doubt Japanese would use it. Although I have never found why "G" was used. Until that time comes I do like the humor of a nut-less horse.

Almost every lens redesigned in the last 5 years (that I know of) are "G" lenses. Only disadvantage is that you can't use it (well) on old film cameras.

Here is a great resource for all Nikon lens info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount#Nikkor

The "G" stands for gelded according to Ken Rockwell, meaning something is missing like when you take the nuts off a horse. Mr. Rockewell, I do believe, sees the missing aperture ring as a disavantage, and depending on the situation it can be. One of the things I love the most about Nikons is that, compared to other brands, there is a lack of digital menus and more analog inputs or switches. Nikon DSLRs fell more like... well.. cameras imstead of digital toys.

On that note, Nikon 1 Canon 0. Not only is this my first post on the forum, it is my first post as a Nikon shooter. Yep,add one more to the list.

I'm hoping to get a big shout out from Nikodoby, as I do remember having an exange of words or two on the Canon Rumours forum. But, that was when I shot with a 40D, and the D3 was an infant(just came out). The D200 was okay, but I lusted after big white lenses ( I cried when I sold my 70-200 2.8L). Anyway, I was a Canon shooter, and then I bought a 7D. Wow... what a piece of crap. ISO 400 usable, ISO 800 forget it. And pixel thatching WTF was that! So, I decided it was time to change. I tried a 1D4, it was nice. I figuered I'd try a D3S. Sold! The more I use it the more I am impressed.

The only part that wasn't great was trading in a 7D w/ Grip, 16-35 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8L IS, 580 EX II, and 2X teleconverter, for ONE camera body and a fast 50 with no nuts(1.4G).

I need a cheaper hobby.

"G" means that the lens lacks an Aperture ring. An "D" or earlier non-D lenses have aperture rings so that they work with older film cameras.

The 70-300 mm VR is a G lens. What does the G mean?

NikoDoby said:
Just remember Jared that it's not how big your lens filter is, it's how you use it :^)

Love it!

Just remember Jared that it's not how big your lens filter is, it's how you use it :^)

Owning the 70-300mm VR I can say it is many steps above a average consumer lens. That includes, being FX, VR performance, distortion, and the glass as well.

The 55-300 seems to be targeted to Consumer as a match to the 18-55. Generally they are great for the buck, but hold little water to to the mid to high range Nikons.

My rule of thumb on which ZOOM lenses are good - better - best runs like this:
Check Filter Size <67mm = Consumer - >67mm <72mm = Mid - >77mm Pro

Newfie said:
The 70-300 is a FX lens. Bigger components = bigger price prehaps????

Embarrassing...I completely missed that. ;-)

I doubt it. I think that most Nikon lens are engineered to be the best possible given the price point they are slated for. Once you get into the 2.8 zooms and fast primes the price allows Nikon to use different and more refined components which leads to higher IQ. Most of these lenses just happen to be suitable for FX bodies.

Are the FX lenses better engineered than their DX counterparts?

The 70-300 is a FX lens. Bigger components = bigger price prehaps????

IF means internal focus, and it's not such a big deal in this case. Sometimes IF can be nice because it can mean that the lens groups only move inside the lens, making the lens less likely to suck dust into itself. The 70-300 changes length as you zoom, though, so that's why I say IF doesn't matter much in its case.

We'll just have to see if the optical performance of the 55-300 is as good as the 70-300.

I am a newbie and don't understand this. Why does the Nikon 70-300 mm lens sell for $500 but the newly released 55-300 mm lens sells for only $400?

Here are the details on the lenses:
Nikon 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF VR AF-S $500 at least
Nikon 55-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor $400

??? Is it the IF of the 70-300 lens. What is IF?