Thinking about a Nikkor 70-300 VR

allanm

allanm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,727
Name
Allan
Edit My Images
No
Since i sent my 18-200VR lens away to Nikon for repair, the sharpness has increased, and with my new D300, it really is a very good lens. However, I would really like a little bit more length ;) with VR.
The 70-300VR looks a good buy, anybody out there have one with an opinion of its IQ?
Or what about a Tamron AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR VC

Allan
 
Allan i use a 70-300 VR on a D300 and i think the IQ is really good especially with good light - these were both taken with the above combo.

bird1.jpg


bird2.jpg
 
One here from a D300 70-300VR
2515205029_091673b369_o.jpg
 
Cracking lens for the money, I've just bought a Sigma 120-300 2.8 but will be keeping the 70-300 for it's VR and for when I can't be arsed lugging the siggy around!

All shots below taken with the 70-300VR on a D200, it does well even at the long end - although I should mention I wasn't happy with the IQ until I removed the Hoya Pro1 UV filter I'd had fitted:

Tern_by_HairyToes.jpg


Little_owl_by_HairyToes.jpg


Stoat_by_HairyToes.jpg


Fantastic_Mr_Fox_III_by_HairyToes.jpg
 
Well, that convinces me, they all look pretty sharp, looks like the credit card is going to get another hammering.
Tom, I never use a filter if I can help it, I have a Hoya Pro 1 uv on a Siggy macro lens and it certainly does affect the IQ
Allan
 
[QUOTE= although I should mention I wasn't happy with the IQ until I removed the Hoya Pro1 UV filter I'd had fitted:


I'll second that - mine nearly ended up on ebay then i tried it without the Hoya Pro filter and it was like a different lens.
 
I'm looking at one of these at the moment as well. Do they work with teleconverters? Also, how does it compare to the Sigma 100-300mm?
 
Inquisitor said:
I'm looking at one of these at the moment as well. Do they work with teleconverters?
Click to expand...

I've used mine with a 1.4 Kenko and it worked ok. The AF did tend to hunt around with it, so if you're shooting something fairly static it'll be alright. The long end of the 70-300 does get a bit soft and is further compromised slightly with a Tcon though.

Great lens for the money - i found it a good travel companion along with something a bit wider and faster.
 
Thanks. Thinking about it I might just hold out for a Nikkor 80-400mm when I can afford it, as the 70-300 would be pretty slow with a TC on it and I imagine the IQ would be nowhere near as good :/
 
I borrowed an 80-400 a little while ago, wasnt as impressed with it as I thought I should have been. It didnt seem to have the punch that my 18-200VR has at 200mm, and got quite soft at 400.

I`ve just been looking at a 170-500 Sigma. Maybe keep the 180-200 and top it up with this one?
Allan
 
or if you have loads of money the nikon 200-400vr would compliment nicely
 
visualisetheworld said:
or if you have loads of money the nikon 200-400vr would compliment nicely
Click to expand...

Problem is, after buying the D300, money something that i dont have a lot of. Dont mind spending 3 or 4 hundred on a reasonable lens, not 3 or 4 grand!
Allan
 
Inquisitor said:
The other possibility would be a Sigma 100-300 + 1.4x TC, which someone suggested. How would that combination compare to the 80-400 do you think?
Click to expand...

Well, I have the 100-300mm (albeit on a D200 though), and I'm more than happy with it - I'm angling for a 1.4*TC at the end of this week, which apparently works well with the lens... Plus, the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma looks slightly more impressive ;)
 
Cool, I guess I'll go for that then :)

Just another question: would an 82-77 filter step-down ring cause vignetting on the 100-300?
 
Hmmm, tricky one, I`ll just have another look........

Allan
 
allanm said:
I`ve just been looking at a 170-500 Sigma. Maybe keep the 180-200 and top it up with this one?
Allan
Click to expand...

I tried this lens out and I was really dissapointed. The one I used was very soft - may have been a one off but wouldnt be happy with it had I have paid for it myself!
I have heard that the 50-500 is a much better lens if your looking at getting the 500 end as sharp as possible :D
 
I think I was just getting fl fever there, I agree the 50-500 would be the better lens, loads of people are happy with it, but i think its a bit too long for me. I originally thought about the Nikkor 70-300 VR, seems a good choice, but I like Sigma lenses, especially the EX range and Sigma have a rather good 100-300 f4 EX lens that suits a 1.4 x and 2 x teleconverter. But no VR though :(
I`ll have a think about that for a while, I wont have the cash till later this week, so i am bound to change my mind a few more times.
I quite like the look of the Sigma 10-20 as well...... too many lenses, not enough cash!

Allan
 
Hi
I used to own the Nikon 70-300mm pre VR lens but camera shake at the 300mm range made me swap for the 70-300VR version. What an improvement that made and would recommend it. Ok I generally use a tripod but there are occassions where that option is not possible.

Realspeed
 
Magnum said:
This will be my next purchase.
Which one is it from these three? http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss...rl=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=70-300+VR+
Click to expand...

They are all the same I think, with slightely different names. Go into the product info, and they give full names. I think this lens is new, and still in its first version, am I wrong?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-2161-...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1211839076&sr=8-1
This one seems best, most people buy from it, and its cheaper with free delivery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top