Budget 70-300mm zoom for Nikon D90

P

philRS

Suspended / Banned
Messages
68
Edit My Images
Yes
Can someone that may have one possibly advise/help me

I'm wanting a budget zoom. I have been looking at the Nikon/sigmas/tamrons all budget and i know they are cheap build/optics etc etc.

Could some of you post some pics taken with these "cheap zooms" to help me decide which to go for.
I have seen quite a few on ebay between around £80-£180 depending if new or second hand.

Im looking for a zoom for a bit of wildlife and motorsport photography and realise that these lenses will require a higher ISO in order to obtain faster shutter speeds compared to the faster zooms which are way out of my price range:'(

cheeRS Phil
 
I've been looking at the Sigma 70-300mm zoom lens which seems to fit the bill for a budget lens at this price...Reasonably priced new, and also second hand as well!
 
I'm in exactly the same boat but I've come to the conclusion that a second hand Nikon 70-300mm at around £300 is going to be much more worthwhile in the long run than a brand new Sigma or Tamron equivalent.
 
i'd like to see 2 identical pics to be honest 1 showing a pic on a budget 70-300 and one on a more expensive 70-300 zoom, i know build will be different but its the pic at end of day that counts for me, basically something that justifies £250+ difference ,does that make sense?
 
Have a look on Flickr, just search each lens.

I started this thread some time ago as I was close to buying the Nikon, the examples posted on that thread are pretty good to say the least.
 
This reminds me I have a Tamron 70-300 sat in a cupboard, was placed there when i bought the Nikon vr version.

If i get chance later I'll snap a cpl of pic's and post them, hopefully that will help you spot any differences

Rob.
 
Cheers Rob that would certainly help.......

thanks guys, the links show some cracking pics. Seems the Nikon 70-300 VR is a respectable lens for the money but it retails over £350 with is still over my budget at the moment (4 kids and xmas dont allow Dad much spending money) so its gonna end up being a non VR version because it is much cheaper.

Are the actual optics diff between the VR and non VR Nikon 70-300mm zooms or is the extra cost purely for the VR function?
 
i think i will put everyone i see on ebay on watch and hope i get one cheap but in the mean time i think i might go for the Nikon 70-300 non VR just to satisfy my curiosity. My daughter has a D70 so if im not happy it could be passed onto her lol.
 
Definitely the Nikon VR as far as your budget vs quality is concerned
 
here are the Pics with AF NIKKOR | 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G on a D80

70mm - 135mm - 300mm

DSC_2064.jpg


DSC_2065.jpg


DSC_2066.jpg


Done with 2 flashes: SB800 & Sigma EF-530DG ST. Hope it helps. not very good pics because im not very good :lol: .
 
I know it's a sony fit lens, but these are from my sigma 70-300.
I do like the lens, it feels nice etc, sorry my pics are a bit pants - but that's me, not the lens.

tree
f 5.6, 125th sec, ISO 400, 230mm
DSC01415.jpg


sunflowers
f5.6, 400th sec, ISO 125, 230mm
DSC01403.jpg


Tyne
f 10, 200th sec, ISO 100, 75mm
DSC01390.jpg


Cat
f5.6, 125th sec, ISO400, 200mm
DSC00434.jpg
 
Here's a recently taken snap with a Sigma 70-300 (non-APO). I was in a similar boat to you but first wanted to see what sort of focal lengths I was going to make most use of. So I picked up a mint Sigma off here for just over £50 and I've been impressed by the IQ.

I've also got the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and Nikon 18-135 and I'd say, subjectively, the Sigma is much better build quality than either of those.

Anyway, big tit taken in poor light at ISO200, 220mm and 1/125 with manual focus on a D60:



Paul
 
I have a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro lens and I find it to be really good but I am still learnig I only took up photography properly in September.
 
I've had both Sigma 70-300 APO (on a Canon) and currently got the Nikon 70-300 VR on a D90.

For me, there's no comparison. The Sigma is generally pretty good, but the sharpness, VR and image quality on the Nikon makes up for extra cost none-end. Now I don't need to carry a tripod round on most outings. The VR is invaluable and you can see the effect in the view finder especially at 300mm.

I could post a couple of shots but on different cameras so not directly comparable. If you can't afford it now, save a bit more. It'll be worth it.

Why not go to a dealer and ask if you can try both on a camera and see what you think / how they feel etc.

This one's 300mm, 1/250 ss, ISO1600 on the D90
10131_164858161909_621376909_3328174_1988397_n.jpg


This one's 300mm, 1/500 ss, ISO200 on the D90
4711_90236906909_621376909_2348208_3841836_n.jpg
 
Thanks for all your replies, The VR results certainly look good and i think i may go for one if and when one comes up either on ebay or here at the right price.
 
Spuff said:
Here's a recently taken snap with a Sigma 70-300 (non-APO). I was in a similar boat to you but first wanted to see what sort of focal lengths I was going to make most use of. So I picked up a mint Sigma off here for just over £50 and I've been impressed by the IQ.

I've also got the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and Nikon 18-135 and I'd say, subjectively, the Sigma is much better build quality than either of those.

Anyway, big tit taken in poor light at ISO200, 220mm and 1/125 with manual focus on a D60:



Paul
Click to expand...


Actually called a great tit! :naughty:
 
If you always use a tripod to still object or under a bright environment, then Nikon 70-300mm G (Non VR) and Tamron 70-300 are both cheap and good quality. Sigma 70-300mm APO is much better with a small higher price.

However I personally believe that 'stable' is more important than 'sharp' or 'image quality'. It is nothing if you can't hold the camera stable. So VR or F2.8 is obviously more important than other coditions to me.
 
I've had a Sigma 70-300 for years now, and it still performs well. I think it is well built, study, and is sharp throughout the full range. It's also light enough to carry too...about half a kilo

Here is the f-stop breakdown.

70-135: f/4
135-200: f/4.5
200-250: f/5
250-300: f/5.6
 
Siggy 70-300 APO would be my budget choice.
 
philRS said:
i think i will put everyone i see on ebay on watch and hope i get one cheap but in the mean time i think i might go for the Nikon 70-300 non VR just to satisfy my curiosity. My daughter has a D70 so if im not happy it could be passed onto her lol.
Click to expand...

I have this lens, and have to say that it punches well above it's weight. I don't think you will be too disappointed with it's results:thumbs:
 
before i sold my sony a300 and 18-200, i tried a few pics at 200 with image stabilisation on and off, and then looked at pics zoomed in on camera lcd. pics with IS off can see the shake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top