70mm-300mm Lens

R

roblee

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
No
Hi there, I have just recently purchased a nikon D5100 And couldn't be happier BUT Now i am looking for another lens and have my heart set on buying a 70mm-300mm lens.

Firstly i would love to buy the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR Lens, but looking the prices well they say it all.

What i was wondering was is there a definitive pros and cons if i got a cheaper sigma lens at a lower price, or any other recommendations you may have.

Thanks for taking the time to have a look and for any help.
 
i got the cheap Sigma 70-300mm just over a year ago, just to help me appreciate the length/zoom. if you're as hard up as I was (am still, really) then go for it, but it is quite limiting with our poor light :D

Tamron's 70-300 Di VC USD is a bit cheaper than the Nikon VR and has good reviews
 
Basically the cheaper the lens the worse the image quality. Having said that, if used correctly it could still produce good images.

And of course the lack of VR.

But a Sigma 70-300mm APO can be picked up for about £100 nowadays I reckon.

Second hand, a Nikon 70-300mm VR can be got for £250-£280
 
andy_fozzy said:
But a Sigma 70-300mm APO can be picked up for about £100 nowadays I reckon.
Click to expand...
there's one in classifieds, so get posting nice comments to gain access ;)
 
I'd save a bit more and get the Nikon VR, its a great lens, albeit quite heavy so you need to plan in advance whether you are going to use it
 
I have a Tamron 70-300 ( freebie) on my d5100 and it's a pilo *****. Slow, noisy focus is the main prob. Image quality too isn't very good. Then there is no VR.

I never use it. Thinking about selling it. I have a 55-200 VR and use it all the time, despite the lower zoom. Much better lens, and I bet the 70-300 VR would be the same :-)
 
spacester said:
I have a Tamron 70-300 ( freebie) on my d5100 and it's a pilo *****. Slow, noisy focus is the main prob. Image quality too isn't very good. Then there is no VR.
Click to expand...

that'd be similar to the Nikon and Sigma c£100 versions then :shrug:
 
I've got the cheap tamron version and while it's not the best lens in the world I don't mind it at all. I've got some excellent photos with mine, you just have to learn to work within its limits.
 
If money is an issue then take a look at the Nikon 55-200 VR, you'll be losing a bit at the long end, but it can be had, new, for £150 or so on Ebay and it's a cracking wee lens, far better than any 70-300 Sigma or such you'll get for the money.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If money is an issue then take a look at the Nikon 55-200 VR, you'll be losing a bit at the long end, but it can be had, new, for £150 or so on Ebay and it's a cracking wee lens, far better than any 70-300 Sigma or such you'll get for the money.
Click to expand...
There's the 300 version as well,supposed to be just as good.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If money is an issue then take a look at the Nikon 55-200 VR, you'll be losing a bit at the long end, but it can be had, new, for £150 or so on Ebay and it's a cracking wee lens, far better than any 70-300 Sigma or such you'll get for the money.
Click to expand...

I have this lens. Picked it up for £80 in China (new) from a reputable dealer. It's an ace lens - I use iron preference to the Tamron, despite the loss of mag.
 
I had the Sigma 70-300mm APO when I had a D70 and it was a great combination. When I got the D200 the Sigma suddenly seemed a bit soft. I think going from 6Mp to 10Mp didn't do the lens any favours. :shake:

I got the Nikon 70-300mm VR and it was a big improvement. The VR was a plus too. :)

What I did miss from the Sigma was the smaller size of the lens and the Macro option, but if it doesn't have the quality (for me)to start with, then that makes little difference. :shrug:
 
Ive got the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G Telephoto Zoom Lens, seems to work prety well but then again I am no expert just been a beginner myself.

Anyone know how big a difference there is between the two???
 
I had the Sigma 70-300 OS (optical stabilizer). Not too bad a lens but would go for the Nikon if you can.
TBH I only used it a few times before selling it on at a great loss - I have found this with third party lenses - they don't seem to hold value like the Nikon lenses do unless its the pro level ones like the 70-200 2.8
 
I've had the old cheaper non vr Nikon 70-300, the Nikon vr 55-200, and now have the Nikon vr 70-300. The cheapo 300 was OK in the absence of anything longer and needed good light, the 55-200 was a good lens but not long enough for me. I'd try and save for a second hand vr 70-300.
 
The Tamron 70-300mm VC is easily a match for the NIKON and is a bit less expensive. Excellent reviews and its faster than the Nikon too. I've had mine for over a year and can't recommend it enough.
 
this was taken with my 70-300vr Nikon lens. im no expert but with abit more knowledge of the settings it probably could have been better, this monkey was sitting a good 30-40 feet away. I was looking at the 55-200vr but for an extra 60 or so i could get the 70-300, i knew if i bought the 55-200 i would still want the 70-300, its got a fast autofocus and works well with my D40 i would imagine it would be better with the 5100.
DSC_0092a.jpg
 
Last edited:
i have 70-300 nikon vr which i mainly use for moto x really good lens fast focus and sharp.
 
I got the 55-300 VR Nikkor and have been really pleased with it.(especially as I paid less than £200 for it!)

This was taken in poor light at 300mm f5.6 from 6m away.


Heather


Achilles.jpg
 
I've got the Tamron 70-300 and love it. It does hunt around sometimes though trying to focus.
 
I'm looking at buying the Nikon 70-300mm VR. I see it's come down to £370-£380 in some places online. Should I assume it's a grey import at that price? The cheapest elsewhere currently is £414.
 
My vote goes to the 55-300mm, optically sharper wide open (and stopped down) but you will pay for it in AF speed...

A compromise would be the 55-200mm which is incredibly sharp wide open and stopped down but the AF is faster. Obviously it doesn't go to 300mm but it is considerably less money and can be had for £150 used.

*had the 55-200mm and is every bit as sharp as my old tamron 90mm*
 
I have the 55-200mm VR and it's a good lens, but it depends what you're shooting. I've tried shoot some brides and squirrels the last few days, and to be honest, 200mm isn't enough. I would go for 300 minimum, 400 if you can afford it!

I would like something longer than the 55-200 (my list just gets longer and longer!), so I'll stay tuned.
 
Steven001 said:
I have the 55-200mm VR and it's a good lens, but it depends what you're shooting. I've tried shoot some brides and squirrels the last few days, and to be honest, 200mm isn't enough. I would go for 300 minimum, 400 if you can afford it!

I would like something longer than the 55-200 (my list just gets longer and longer!), so I'll stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Squirrels yes, birds no. But then again 600mm isn't even enough for birds...

With wildlife you have to be patient and doing so with squirrels will enable them to come close enough to you to get a nice shot with a 200mm but yes- 400mm is much better...but getting a 400mm for £150 is not going to happen.
 
You can never have enough zoom when it comes to small bird and tricksy little furry critters. It's just your wallet that stops you :p
 
I'm guessing on your budget that upgrading to FF isnt something you'll be considering in the future? if so the DX options(55-200 and 55-300) do seem like they'd be better value, lighter to carry aswell.

I don't have expereince with Nikon crop tele zooms but my Canon 55-250mm was probabley the best value lens I'v owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top