New Lens 70-300mm

wezza13

wezza13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,359
Name
Wez
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all,

I'm looking to upgrade my d3200 in a month or so, to a d7100.

Also looking to buy the Nikon 70-300 zoom with it as well.

Anybody know what the non-VR AF version is like compared to the VR AF-s version?

The reason I ask is that the Non-VR AF is available for £79, whereas the other one is priced at £299.

From what I gather, the D7100 can use both perfectly well.

Non-VR AF : http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-af-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f4-56g-black-287-p.asp

VR AF-S : http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56g-if-ed-vr-283-p.asp

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers
 
Hi

What are you going to be using the lens for? If using it at fast shutter speed then non vr might be okay otherwise go for the vr.

If you cannot get the vr one now save up for it and get that one. The tamron version with the vr also gets good reviews.
 
Most opinions seam to be the none VR is no where near as good as the VR version,as Kev as said you could look at the Tamron version as a viable alternative.
 
The 70-300 AF is a totally different lens design. I've not used one but reviews are very iffy at best. There is also competition from tamron and sigma at this end of the market.

The 70-300 vr is very decent as is the tamron 70-300 vc.
 
Thank you for the replies. It would make sense that the more expensive one would be the better option.

I have actually hired that one before on my D3200 and it is a great lens that I was happy with.

I was intending to save up for it but then saw the cheaper version whilst browsing various lenses. It jumped out at me as a viable alternative because I know the 7100 can autofocus with AF lenses.

I will only be using it for birds-in-flight and general animal/nature photography. Also, to take pics of my two dogs and children.
 
brman said:
as others have said the VR would be a much better option.
In fact your D3200 with the VR would be better than a 7100 with the non vr.

ie. spend your money on the glass......
Click to expand...

Funnily enough though, my budget allows for me to get a 7100 body and a VR 70-300mm so gonna take advantage of that.

I am upgrading my body as there are a lot more features on the camera rather than searching through menus to change everything! :)
 
The non VR is not a great lens, but I use the VR version quite a lot.

This was taken with the VR lens.


Click for full res.



That was at 170mm at f8

It's a little softer at 300mm, but if you can keep it at f8 or above it's a really nice lens.
 
wezza13 said:
I will only be using it for birds-in-flight and general animal/nature photography. Also, to take pics of my two dogs and children.
Click to expand...

You will struggle with BIF, unless the light is very very good, but for most other general stuff the Nikon is a really good lens for the money.
I find it's decent @ 300mm, but pulling back a bit won't hurt. Similarly @ F6.3 I find it OK.

This pic was taken on a D700 @ 7.45PM in dull conditions. Cropped a bit, lightened & sharpened.
F7.1 @ 300mm

Awwww. by Carl B.1, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
That pic of the bunnies is so cute!

Like the Mustang too, great shot :)

It's only just to give me a bit more reach really whilst I save for a better superzoom.

It's a shame the Nikon ones are so expensive but I might save for one. I'll probably try a Tamron or Sigma one first at my local camera shop to see what they're like.
 
You should be able to pick up a pre-owned minter for around £300
 
Yep loads of good reviews on hdew on TP. My mate bought a Canon 24-120 lens from the without issues.
 
OldCarlos said:
You will struggle with BIF, unless the light is very very good, but for most other general stuff the Nikon is a really good lens for the money.
I find it's decent @ 300mm, but pulling back a bit won't hurt. Similarly @ F6.3 I find it OK.

This pic was taken on a D700 @ 7.45PM in dull conditions. Cropped a bit, lightened & sharpened.
F7.1 @ 300mm
[snipped]
Awwww.y Carl B.1, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I agree will all these comments, it isn't great at 300mm wide open so either pulling it back to 250mm or closing it down to f6.3 or 7.1 will sharpen it up nicely. Plus i think one of the "problems" with the lens is that it is actually very good in it's sweet spot. By very good I mean at least as good as lenses costing many times more. So when you use it wide open at 300mm you notice the softness more than perhaps you would with other lenses.

For example, I recently did some quick comparisons between my 70-300VR and a friends 70-200 VR1 (f2.8). At 200mm, the 70-300 wide open (ie 5.6) was noticably sharper than the 70-200 wide open (ie 2.8). Stopping the 70-200 down to 5.6 at it was clearly better than the 70-300 but stopping the 70-300 down to f8 and I reckon it was slightly better than the 70-200 at 5.6.
Obviously not comparing apples with apples but it does show the 70-300 can give some very good results in the right conditions.
I did this test as I was curious if (on my D7100) the 70-200 at 200mm but cropped would be as good as my 70-300 at 300mm wide open. The answer was a very clear no.....

I wouldn't let OldCarlos's comments about BIF and light put you off either, yes, it is much easier to use in good light and yes, I would rather have a 300mm f3.8 for BIF shots but then I don't have £4k to spare :(

This was taken in pretty poor light, wide open at 300mm.
Gull, about to dive by tobyjm, on Flickr

this one stopped down to f8 but still difficult conditions (backlit, camera exposure got fooled so it needed a fair bit of processing to get it to that.)
Heron 3 reprocessed by tobyjm, on Flickr

and this one in much more optimal conditions (122mm, f8). (ignoring the blown highlights anyway, which isn't the lenses fault!)
Gull chasing food over Fleet Pond by tobyjm, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top