How good is the Nikon 70-300 VR?

cambsno

cambsno

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,999
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, I should know, seeing as I used to have one!!! Trouble is, I don't have man pics from the brief time I had this as fairly quickly went for the 70-200vr, which I don use much and thinking of selling.

My main lenses are the 24-70 and the 50mm 1.4, and use those most of the time. Every now and again I need to go past 100mm and can't really justify the 70-200 sitting at home most of the time. It is a wonderful lens, and I do worry that I will not be happy with a 'lesser' lens like the 70-300.

I use the70-200 on family days out when I need length and also for the 2 or 3 air shows I go to a year, and do find that 200mm is not long enough. So, have I been spoilt with primes and pro glass to never be happy with a cheaper lens. Or is it good enough? Would love to hear from anyone that's gone from one to the other, and keen to see any aircraft shots especially at 300mm. Oh, I tend to like prop aircraft so often shoot at f8-f11 in order to keep shutter speed low so not being too sharp wide open may not be the end of the world.
 
I've used the 70-300 and found it pretty soft over 200 to be honest, would the nikon TC not be better on your 70-200? Would be a shame to get rid of that lens, i'm still trying to get an 80-200 AF-D for a good price lol
 
The images here were taken with the 70-300 VR.

Whilst people say it is soft over 200 it's really fine unless you pixel peep. Real world is fine. Still miss the lens.
 
Nice pics! Can't dispute the evidence lol
 
I like my 70-300, I reckon it's the best telephoto Nikon do before you get to the F/2.8 and F/4 lenses.

If I had a 70-200mm I'd probably whack a TC on, I hear the Jessop 2xTC is ok for the money if you are on a budget.
 
I like the lens, it's a useful focal length, compact and image quality is good. On my D700 body, it's a bit limited at airshows though, clearly with a D300 the crop factor would make it more useful. This set was taken at the Southport Airshow last year, all towards the 300mm end of the lens, and they are OK, if slightly soft compared to some I've seen from others with better glass. Remember as well that at the long end it's slow - fine on a sunny day, not so much when it's 'typical airshow weather', unless you want to crank up the ISO.
 
There is one in the classifieds at the moment for £300
 
the 70-300 is a little soft round the edges at 220mm+ but nothing too bad, its focusing is quicker than you'll expect.

The zoom motion is a little cheap feeling and it can be hard to quickly zoom out when compared to the 70-200 but the weight and the space you save can be handy - I would recommend getting one but not at the expense of selling your 70-200.
 
I had one and didn't really find it soft at 300mm, not as sharp as at around 240 - 260, but certainly not what I would class as soft.
The Tamron 70-300 VC gets very good reviews and apparently contrast and IQ at 300 are better than the Nikon.

I'll get another one soon though, soon as the bonus comes through... ( I must have spent that 10 times already!)

Allan
 
I keep a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED - AF-S VR in my bag, it's quite light weight and unless you want to spend some silly money on a lens then it's value for money for the quality.

I have known a few togs that make comments like 'oh it's a bit soft at the top end' but haven't acutely owned one. I'm not saying everyone is like that. Lets face it, some lenses are outright soft and you don't need any data to see that !

I like to look at independent scientific data if I can get hold of it and and make a judgement call on that. This is acutely quite a good lens. I have been quite pleased with my results....

I took this image at 300mm F/ 5.6, +1 (E/V) 2 Sec exp (handheld), 400 ISO

6989841937_b2d51249f9_b.jpg


If you look around the bazars there are some really good bargains to be had. good luck with your search :thumbs:


Nick
 
For the money it's actually quite a good lens. I used mine over the weekend and was quite happy with what I got. I do echo what people have said about the softness beyond 220-240mm, but it isn't soft as such, just not as absolutely pin sharp as the rest of the focal length range.
 
Thanks for replies. I really dont want to part with the 70-200 as it is a beautiful lens, but to have a £1k lens sitting at home most of the time makes no sense. On the occasions I do use it, it sometimes feels I am using it because I feel bad about not using it, and the few times I use it properly, get annoyed that it wont go to 300!!!
 
It really is a cracking lens for the money. I have had mine for ages and it still amazes me how sharp it can be. This was taken on Sat - 270mm 1/640 on a tripod




Blue Tit by Don't like to be Bored, on Flickr

HTH

Nick
 
I haven't used my 70-300 for a few weeks now after purchasing a 70-200. Yes I miss the extra length and the 70-200 is very heavy in comparison but it is so sharp:eek::love: That said, I will return to the 70-300 when I really do need that extra length as I've never found mine soft to be noticeable. In fact at 320 quid it's the best lens you could buy. Tell you what, I'll swop you mine for your 24-70;)
 
Doog said:
I haven't used my 70-300 for a few weeks now after purchasing a 70-200. Yes I miss the extra length and the 70-200 is very heavy in comparison but it is so sharp:eek::love: That said, I will return to the 70-300 when I really do need that extra length as I've never found mine soft to be noticeable. In fact at 320 quid it's the best lens you could buy. Tell you what, I'll swop you mine for your 24-70;)
Click to expand...

I would rather part with my wife than my 24-70 :eek:

If she reads this am dead:nono:
 
Soft over 200mm? Did anyone say that again?

Maybe my eyesight is letting me down, personally I do not think this is soft


Sitting Mara by JP de Jong, on Flickr

Handheld at 300mm 1/320 f/5.6 ISO100
 
I love my 70-300 on my D700, it's a cracking combo and I have no concerns of it's sharpness at 300mm whatsoever.

Of course, the D700 is capable of resolving more surface detail so the lens doesn't have to work so hard to achieve great sharpness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top