Nikon 70-300

[Yardbent]

I have the standard 55-200 AF-S DX "VR"

just got a Sigma 17-70....
so was wondering whether to replace the 200mm Nikon with this -
Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR
300mm as I do some bird shots in the garden?

ATM in Classified are 3 listed as VRII.
Nikon 70-300mm VR(II) AF-S f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

V1 or V2...whats the difference.?
(the only info I can find is on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 V1 or V2)

thanks

 

[Martyn...]

They only have one VR version of the 70-300, which is the VRII.

VRII is an improvement on VRI according to Nikon sales blurb, and only really of concern if you are looking at the 70-200 or 300 f2.8, it identifies between the older and newer model.

If your after birds and want 300mm, the 300mm f4 AF S is a peach of a lens, and will take either the 1.4 or 1.7 TC, however this will cost you more.

The 70-300 VR is a well regarded lens, just make sure it is the VR version you are buying, the previous non VR version was not as good optically as the new one.

 

[Yardbent]

They only have one VR version of the 70-300, which is the VRII..

Thanks for that...it was a bit confusing as the photos of the Manual included with the lens photo, just read VR ..no mention of VRII

 

[davek]

I have the 70-300VR and had the 55-200VR.
Frankly, there's not going to be a huge difference (in my view) if you make this change in order to get birding shots.
I'd go with the above advice - get a good tele and a TC. That will make a real difference to your reach. Just my 2p.

In every other way I'm delighted with the 70-300mm, especially the build quality. (The downside of course is a huge difference in weight and bulk (double on both counts!)).

 

[Yardbent]

(The downside of course is a huge difference in weight and bulk (double on both counts!)).

actually that's what has held me back so far.....

I dont go "bird" hunting per se ...just the occasional chance shot

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If you're planning to tack it onto the front of your D40 then the 70-300 VR is about as far as I'd recommend going, the likes of 300 f/4 are just too heavy to balance properly. On the other hand, if you upgrade to a D200 then something like the 80-200 f/2.8 is a much better lens for another £150 or so, but that on a D200 is a fairly weighty combo, which might be an issue.

 

[AlanK]

I just picked upt this lens and well chuffed with it - would have loved a f2.8 but for my use I could not justify the price.

VR has been replaced by VRII although from what I understand there is minimal difference and is more usefull for pushing for a better price on an original VR lens

 

[Scotty B]

The 70-300VR is a superb lens for the money. My lens is super sharp upto 280mm and then it falls away but not by much.