Nikon 70-300 VR - recommend?

A

Andy M

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys I've got a D80 and a few lenses.
Ive got a 18-70 ED a 70-300 G and a 50mm f1.8.

This covers a good range. However Ive not been impressed with the 70-300. It has noisy focussing through the camera, and is just generally not up to the same quality as the other lenses.

I was thinking of selling it and buying the 70-300mm VR which has VRII and a SWM. Also its better glass is that correct?

Would you say this is a good choice? I don't want anything bigger or bulkier really.
 
Yup, I had one of those on my D80, it's a nice combo,well recommended benefits from having the MB-D80 grip on it to balance it all out.
 
:plusone: for this lens. At the price its selling for, and the reach you get, you can't go wrong with it; and it is rahter sharp accross the range.
 
I have one and am undecided as to whether I should sell it when I get my 70-200 2.8
 
Actually, PsiFox, I am in your same shoes.

I've decided to keep it while getting the 70-200VR aswell. The 70-300VR comes in handy when I want to travel light, and when I believe I don't need to have the 70-200VR with me. I can just take it as "just-in-case" situations. I can't carry the 70-200VR casually.
 
I too had the Nikon 70-300mm lens but when the VR version came out I sold the older version and bought that instead. Was it worth it ? yes it was in my opinion.
Realspeed
 
Ive been looking at the 70-300VR because my grandad has said if I want it I can have it for christmas :love: :love: [Yes I am a spoilt only child] but a couple of reviews I had read were that it was soft, people werent happy with it etc etc....
So I have to say I was glad to see someone else comment on here about it, as I was just about to write a post :lol:

Anyone using it with a D200?
 
Spoilt-kid :) ... enjoy every bit of it; as before you know it you will be the one dishing out the Christmas presents to your kids, so for now .. enjoy this phase of your life as much as possible and maximise what you have. Don't settle for the 70-300VR, see if you can agree on him getting you the 70-200VR :shrug:? OK, that may be pushing it a bit.

Back on topic, yes the 70-300VR does get soft; but only at the extreme end of its range (close to 300mm). Other than that, it is very sharp accross the whole range.

As for the older, and much cheaper G model, I actually loved my copy. That is a very slow, and very noisy lens; but I learned to used it manual focus and got some of the best F1 pictures I have with it. For the price, it was amazing :shrug:
 
dellipher said:
but a couple of reviews I had read were that it was soft, people werent happy with it etc etc....Anyone using it with a D200?
Click to expand...

Can't say that I've ever known it to be soft, probably a bit blurred but that's me :lol: a seriously great lens for the price, i upgraded from a sigma 70-300mm APO and i can really see the difference,you won't be disappointed, I'm using it on a D300 :thumbs:
 
dellipher said:
but a couple of reviews I had read were that it was soft, people werent happy with it etc etc....
Click to expand...

My copy was genuinely sharp at 300mm, I've seen a couple of soft ones... the softer ones generally get soft from about 220-240mm.

At 300mm f/8 its very good - much better than you'd think from a £330 consumer zoom.

I had a bit of an epiphany regarding this lens, because when I first tried one in 2006 I thought it was a POS, but with my latest one I've completed changed my mind now.
 
i had one and thought it was great, sold it for a Simga 100-300 which then went lol

good lens for the price, and at the time i owned it it was the best lens i had and most used
 
The Nikon 70-300 VR works for me.

Here are an unretouched original of the whole image and a 100% pixel crop of a section.

Picture taken hand-held in strong winds, VR on, at 300mm focal length.


1.
All.jpg



2.
All-100pc.jpg



Edward
 
On longer lenses i think the VR is a god send when working outdoors.

Well worth the money.
 
dellipher said:
but its to VR or not to VR is it really worth it?
Click to expand...

The non-VR 70-300 G is a POS (sorry to anyone that owns one, but it really is), for the money the 70-300 VR is a cracking lens.

In the long run there is no substitute for fast (ie f/2.8) glass, but as your only real "cheap" fast option, excluding Sigma etc, is the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, which weighs about the same as a small car, has less reach and costs twice as much, the 70-300 VR is about as good a lens as you'll get for the money, especially secondhand from the TP sales forum :)
 
Well I'm going to step in and defend the 70-300 AF-G!

With good technique its perfectly fine.

100% crop, 300mm:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/D50/af_70_300_web.jpg

I used the lens to shoot this shot from memory


356942401_ae07c4c78f_o.jpg

​

For about £60 its "ok" - tbh a lot of people moan about this lens because they can't handhold a lens of that length. Fundamentally its not a dog - especially for £60. But you need to know how to use a lens of that length (I beanbagged with it as a rule)

You need to stop it down and keep it below about 240mm if possible. Its probably a bit better than its build quality and price tag would suggest IMHO.

Optically the 70-300 VR is better though (but its also 3x the price)
 
Now that is one fantastic shot.

If I had access to my home server (it's in Saudi Arabia, and is offline right now), I would probably post a couple of shots in defence of the G; I too, liked it a lot as I've already stated.


Flash, POS ... Point of Sale :thinking: .. just kidding.


Yes, the G model is slow and yes it is noisy, but there are times when it works well.

How did I use it? Well, I got myself porched on a nice ledge, right on to the fence (this was at F1 in Monte Carlo, put the focus on to manual, fixed the focus to a dead-spot in to one of the turns, started to shoot before the cars came into the focus-point and continued to shoot as fast as I could. Was using a D70, not exactly the fastest of cameras for fps, but was good enough.

Remember, this is a very slow lens, but a very light one too. So, for the whole 3 days (test, qualification, and the actual race) I was standing the whole time and the only thing that ached were my feet, from the position I was standing in. So much so that I was taken to the airport in a wheel chair :p; but the shots I got were just amazing.

Would I be able to handhold the VR version for so long? I doubt it. Would the VR version be able to focus fast enough to catch the F1 cars coming round the corner? No way. That technique worked very well and the results were crisp sharp, and for what I paid .. it was a God send.
 
I would probably post a couple of shots in defence of the G; I too, liked it a lot as I've already stated.

Well to give some context, its sharper and faster in aperture than the 18-200 VR in the overlapping range - thats £60 vs £350.

For what is is, its perfectly OK, and its hard to find fault with the price. I've seen them go for £30 + p&p on Ebay..!

For some reason Nikon makes very good cheap plasticky consumer zooms - ie the 70-300 AF-G or the 55-200 DX.
 
I had the VR version and loved it (sold it on here to a lucky member as it was a very sharp one) I would say get one and if you don't get on with it or its not as sharp as you would like you should be able to sell it for only a few pounds less than you paid (they seem to hold value very well)
 
puddleduck said:
How are you finding the 120-400 Nick?
Click to expand...

I haven't had much of a chance to get out and test it TBH, from some of the shots I took at my son's football match the other week though I found it a bit hit and miss (possibly to do with the weight and the fact I was doing handheld) but the shots that were good even at longer lengths were pin sharp, but some of the others were very poor even at shorter lengths so a bit 50/50 for now.

I am hoping to get some more shooting done soon though so can give some better feedback afterwards :thumbs:
 
Wail said:
Flash, POS ... Point of Sale :thinking: .. just kidding.
Click to expand...

I really meant probably old stock :naughty: ;)

Seriously though, I tried the 70-300 g (before I bought the VR) in Jessops, where it was about £170 or so. At that price it is a pos, but at the £60 or so they ended up at new or £30 secondhand, as PD says it's hard to fault.

I seem to remember reading a review somewhere in which the writer postulated that the low-end Nikon glass productionmay be subcontracted out to someone like Tamron as there were striking similarities in construction and iq, but I can't find the original article....hope it wasn't by KR :p
 
but its to VR or not to VR is it really worth it? dellipher
Click to expand...
A definite yes to VR on a lens. Particularly consdidering my style of photo taking which is to move around a lot with hand-held shots, and which are mostly of motorsport subjects.
The built-in auto-focus on the Nikon 70-300 VR lens works quickly, but there is a small delay for the VR to settle.
I would not be without it, though, as the number of keepers is greatly increased, and I can get shots which would otherwise be difficult.

Edward
 
Used to have the G version and it wasn't bad. Now got the VR and it's so much better.
Optically, the lens has been improved significantly and the SW motor makes focussing both faster and quieter. The VR is the icing on the cake and allows handholding down to 1/30th at 300mm at least.
It's a bit heavier than the G but the VR means that you can leave the 'pod at home. The extra weight also makes it better balanced on the F80, D70 and D200.
Wouldn't be without it, it's always in the bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top