Nikon 70-300mm VR

dan_yorkshire

dan_yorkshire

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,398
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
First has anyone got this lens and what do they think of it.

Do you think it is worth paying the extra over the 55-200mm VR?

Also, did anyone manage to buy one or was it noticed when it dropped from £400 to under £165 last month?

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod203.html

I'm gonna keep my eye out for a similar price drop, must have been a pricing error?!

Cheers
 
Sorry about the dodgy PP on this, but this was taken with a mates 55-200VR. Nice quality lens compared to my Sigma 70-300. I don't think i've ever been over the 200mm mark on my lens (apart from in the macro mode). I'd go for the 55-200 but thats just my choice. If you need the extra range go for the 300.

retrosheep2-1.jpg
 
I have owned both. The 55-200 is a very nice lens and for the price is reasonable. Very lightweight but not the sharpest. The 70-300 is a whole different beast. The AF is leagues above the 55-200, very fast and great for tracking (sports ect) thanks to the SWM motor. I have never noticed any softness in it but would like it to be slightly faster for low light (70-200 someday!). I no longer use the 55-200.

Final Outcome: If you can afford the extra get the 70-300.
 
I have both, but don't use the 55-200VR much at all. Price & image wise, the 55-200VR is outstanding .. for the price, that is.

The 70-300VR is faster to focus, yields sharper and better images.

Is the 70-300VR better than the 55-200VR? Depends on a few factors .... are you happy to fork out the extra bit of cash? are you happy to carry something bigger and heavier? If so, then yes, it is a better lens overall.

But all that shouldn't push you away from the 55-200VR, which is a very good lens by all counts.
 
I have the 70-300VR and it's a fantastic lens. Very sharp all through the range and fast focusing. The VR system is superb and helped my hand hold 1/15 @300mm and still get good results.
 
I've had both and the 70-300mm vr is a big improvment.
has better image quality and just feels better. mines up for sale too ;)
 
another on my wish list LOL

go for the 70-300vr for the extra range
 
Scotty B said:
I have the 70-300VR and it's a fantastic lens. Very sharp all through the range and fast focusing. The VR system is superb and helped my hand hold 1/15 @300mm and still get good results.
Click to expand...

+1:wave:
 
Yes, an excellent lens and the VR is very good for hand held work
 
I too have both, although I'd forgotten it until I read this thread :p!

After buying the 55-200 VR and trying it on my D40, I was so disappointed with it that I just put it back in it's bag and tried to forget about the money I'd wasted on it. I found that it couldn't AF at all well, even on a bright (but overcast) afternoon and that the pictures were all soft (or maybe the subjects were OOF and soft :shrug:). Perhaps I just have a bad one!?

The 70-300VR isn't my favourite lens in the world either (feels a bit too big on my D40 and a bit too 'cheap' on my D700 :D), but it can give some very good results, IME. The main problem (which it shares with the 55-200 VR), is that it struggles to focus in low light and additionally it really is (as most people report) pretty soft once it goes much over the 200mm focal length. I've got no really sharp shots over 240mm, even when testing it on a tripod in good light.

At 220mm and under, though, and in good to 'normal' daylight conditions, it really works well :). The VR is perhaps more necessary on this longer lens (than on the stubby 55-200) and seems to work well without taking away much of the sharpness. I reckon that it would work well for sports, airshows and any daytime situation where you're separated from your subject by some distance. What it doesn't do well (and what I really bought mine for) is wildlife shots in dim, forest light - the available shutter speeds are just too slow (+1/15th sec.) to get truly blur-free shots, be it due to camera shake and/or subject movement. I really need to ratchet up the ISO to bring down the shutter times, but as the lens can't always focus itself accuratley (on distant, tiny birds), even this isn't much help!?

(Shallow) DOF is another area where is loses points over the "big boys" (the 80-200 and 70-200 f/2.8), but that's only to be expected with it's spec and price point.

Price-wise, I actually felt that it was a little over-priced when I bought mine under a year ago (for less than 310 quid), but now, when you compare even it's new price against the 1,850+ required for the latest 70-200mm VR lens, it doesn't seem so bad :|.

Just my $0.02.
 
I have this lens and it is a great lens and very fast:love:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top