Nikon 70-300 or alternatives (FX)

K

kartracer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
Looking for a big more reach on an FX camera and thinking to get the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR. Ideally I'd like more reach, e.g. 400mm, but I'm on a tight budget. Is it worth looking at the Tamron lenses or anything else? VR is a nice to have.
 
The Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD is a good lens and very reasonably priced. I use on a DX format D7100, but have never used on a FX FF. I'd be very interesting to know as a FX Nikon is a future possibility.
 
What kind of budget are you thinking? The Nikon 70-300 VR goes for around £200 used so it's very hard to beat in this price range. The problem with telephoto zooms at this end of the price range is they are not at their best at full range, at 300mm the 70-300 is softer than 200-250mm. I had a 70-300 vr for a while, I found it performed better than I expected than its price suggested. I did find it was noticely slower to focus than a 300 f4 so if you are used to faster focusing lenses you may notice it, I only noticed when I got the 300 f4.

Beyond the 70-300 offerings the next choice is the 300 f4 (af-s non vr), it's a much better lens than the 70-300 (faster focus, sharper and takes a teleconverter well) but they go for around £500 used. You can add the 1.4 mk2 teleconference later to get a nice 420mm f5.6. It sounds like the 300mm f4 is currently out of your budget bug worth knowing about if you later want better performance at the long end.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. The 300mm f4 is a great lens but, aside from price (which is beyond budget at the moment), need more flexibility hence a looking zoom.

I think the 70-300mm will suffice, unless there is anything better for the money (£300-ish)
 
Another vote for the Tamron, but I have not tried the Nikon.
As rob-nikon says, it is a little soft at full reach, but for the money I would have imagined there is little else to add to the list.
 
Although I haven't tried it myself, I have recently been thinking of trading my Tamron 70-300 for the Nikon. It is a good performer but having looked at so many other people's pics on Flickr (and here) shot with the Nikon I can't help but think the Tamron does lose some detail; it could be my technique, but comparing like for like conditions I have come to the conclusion that the Nikon is worth the extra money.
 
Last edited:
stevewestern said:
Another vote for the Tamron, but I have not tried the Nikon.
As rob-nikon says, it is a little soft at full reach, but for the money I would have imagined there is little else to add to the list.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Is there much variation across copies of the Nikon?
 
kartracer said:
unless there is anything better for the money (£300-ish)
Click to expand...

How about a 2ndhand Sigma 150-500? I bought one from the classifieds for £350 just over 12 months ago and was very happy with its performance, although I've recently just sold it to upgrade top a 150-600 C for the slightly more reach.
 
I've had a couple of the Nikon and both were very good. I've also had the Tamron and that was also very good. You could toss a coin to be honest. If I was you I'd scout around for a mint and boxed copy of either and buy which ever comes in cheapest. I suspect that would be the Tamron. The VR on that lens is very good indeed and for me might even edge it.
 
benc98 said:
Another vote for the Tamron - I was a bit silly to let that one go.
Click to expand...
I agree - not about you letting yours go, but me and mine...!
I had both the Tamron and my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for ages as it took a while to decide - clearly the 70-200 is way better in all sorts of ways, but the smaller and lighter Tamron 70-300 has an awful lot to offer, and if you (kartracer) can find a decent S/H copy of either it then there is no reason not to try it, as it won't loose any value short term if you want to change it..
 
I sold mine on here a while ago - think I got about £180..
Nope, I asked for £180, got £170.
 
Last edited:
Another vote for the Nikon 70-300, For the cost of it the quality is really very good, although I do not use mine all that often, it is in my 'definite keepers' bag.
 
kartracer said:
Can't seem to find many Tamron's second hand. Any idea what sort of prices they go for?
Click to expand...

Mine went for £195 but it was absolutely A1 mint and boxed. I'd expect to pay around £180-200 for similar. MPB have one for £204 SH but you get a warranty. You'll likely find the Nikon easier to find as there will be way more of them out there.
 
I could be tempted to put my as new (and sharper than a sharp thing) Nikon 70-300 in the classifieds if I knew someone wanted one.
 
Thanks for letting me know. Earlier comments suggest little variation between samples. Have you got an exceptional copy?
 
I'm on my second and always thought the first one to be a little soft. My current one seems much better, to my eyes at least.
 
I recently picked up a Sigma 100-300 f4, very impressed with it so far. Maybe a little above your budget got mine for just over £300.00.
 
Bargain ... monster lens but great quality. Had a couple of them in the past. Decent with a 1.4 icon too.
 
ManVan said:
I could be tempted to put my as new (and sharper than a sharp thing) Nikon 70-300 in the classifieds if I knew someone wanted one.
Click to expand...

Just missed out on a Tamron so wiling to consider the Nikon. Are you still thinking to sell yours?
 
Not sure I should answer in this thread. Aren't there rules on trading outside the classifieds?

Could a Mod confirm please.

I could reply quickly to a want ad though.
 
Tried both the nikon and tamron side by side much preferred the tamron its a great lens and comes up at bargain prices used as well.
 
ManVan said:
Not sure I should answer in this thread. Aren't there rules on trading outside the classifieds?

Could a Mod confirm please.

I could reply quickly to a want ad though.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK, I'll put up a wanted ad.
 
StuartH said:
Tried both the nikon and tamron side by side much preferred the tamron its a great lens and comes up at bargain prices used as well.
Click to expand...

I was looking for a Tamron (also cheaper than the Nikon) but missed out on a deal.
 
I just preferred the vc compared to the vr when testing them and preferred build quality also.I love nikon lenses but IMO I thought the tamron was tad superior.Theres a few threads on both on here if you search with lots of sample images.
 
I had the Nikon and was very happy with it, and I would choose this over the Tamron just because it's fractionally sharper. However, for the price the Tamron can't be beaten.
 
snerkler said:
I had the Nikon and was very happy with it, and I would choose this over the Tamron just because it's fractionally sharper. However, for the price the Tamron can't be beaten.
Click to expand...
Mm I didn't think it was tbh but sample variation and all that I guess.
 
StuartH said:
Mm I didn't think it was tbh but sample variation and all that I guess.
Click to expand...
Most reviews and test scores I've seen say the Nikon is marginally sharper, but it's not by much. For example it's only by 1 score on DXO. If buying both new then it's a no brainer IMO as the Nikon is not worth the extra. But I'd personally buy a used Nikon due to the build, rendering and marginal sharpness advantage. YMMV
 
I just judged it on hands on test and not internet test scores. Both good lenses though
 
StuartH said:
I just judged it on hands on test and not internet test scores. Both good lenses though
Click to expand...
Yeah, sharpness is perceived differently by different people and is very subjective anyway and so always best to try for yourself. Plus sharpness is only one of the aspects of a lens as we know. How a lens renders is more important to me, how much 'pop' it has, colours, contrast etc.
 
I have owned both and IMO the Tamron had more pop than the Nikon on my different copies, the Nikon does seem to be slightly better built though.
 
Swanseajack said:
I have owned both and IMO the Tamron had more pop than the Nikon on my different copies, the Nikon does seem to be slightly better built though.
Click to expand...
It does seem there's a lot of sample variation, even with the Nikon. How did you find the difference in AF speeds for moving subjects using AF-C?
 
snerkler said:
It does seem there's a lot of sample variation, even with the Nikon. How did you find the difference in AF speeds for moving subjects using AF-C?
Click to expand...

IIRC there wasn't any noticeable difference for AF, I was using DX at the time. At one point I had the Tamron & Nikon versions together and after comparing I went with the Tamron due to the "pop" as I found the Nikon lacked contrast and seemed very flat. I sold the Nikon version. Also, I have owned another two copies of the Tamron since switching to FF.

As a cheap route, I have also found the Sigma 70-300mm APO's to be very good and I have one now as a lightweight option on the D810. I think a couple of members bought one on the D750 thread after seeing some of the results.

Slight side note: I know you spent some time looking at a quality compacts, any reason why you didn't choose the Panasonic LX100 over the Canon?
 
Swanseajack said:
IIRC there wasn't any noticeable difference for AF, I was using DX at the time. At one point I had the Tamron & Nikon versions together and after comparing I went with the Tamron due to the "pop" as I found the Nikon lacked contrast and seemed very flat. I sold the Nikon version. Also, I have owned another two copies of the Tamron since switching to FF.

As a cheap route, I have also found the Sigma 70-300mm APO's to be very good and I have one now as a lightweight option on the D810. I think a couple of members bought one on the D750 thread after seeing some of the results.

Slight side note: I know you spent some time looking at a quality compacts, any reason why you didn't choose the Panasonic LX100 over the Canon?
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. Strange about your Nikon, are you sure you had the VR version as mine had nice pop?

As for the compacts it had to be pocketable, the LX100 is a bit bulky in comparison.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for this. Strange about your Nikon, are you sure you had the VR version as mine had nice pop?

As for the compacts it had to be pocketable, the LX100 is a bit bulky in comparison.
Click to expand...

Of course it was the Nikon VR version:rolleyes:, you think I'm as dull as you.:p........... IIRC I paid £429.00 for it at the time from my local dealer and the Tamron was about £279.00 roughly at the time which is about 4 years ago.

Thought the LX100 may have been to big and your reason not choosing it. Clare didn't like the D3300 so looking for something else, may go for the LX or the new GX80.


ETA: Just checked Flickr and this is a photo from the Nikon VR model if I have read the EXIF correctly (G lens).

DSC_2563 by Swansea Jack, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top