70-210 f4-5.6 versus 70-300VR - anybody compared them?

Well, I've just been playing with my recently acquired 70-210 f4-5.6 (non D

version). It cost all of 38 uk pounds. I did my usual tests - tripod, mirror

delay, target 40 feet away etc. I'm astonished by the sharpness, colour and

contrast from the cheap lens. This is not to say I now hate my 18-200 - It's

still my walkaround lens of choice. However, for more serious tripod mounted

stuff, the 70-210 would be my lens of choice at those focal lengths.

Interestingly, the 70-210 also has more reach than the 18-200: 200mm on the

18-200 at 40 feet is about equivalent to 180mm at the same distance on the

70-210 - I know it's a feature of the lens design.

 

Now, given my preference not to lug a tripod around, I'd be interested to know

if anyone has compared the 70-210 (4-5.6) with the 70-300VR for those situations

where I'm looking for higher quality than the 18-200 but don't want to / can't

use a tripod. While sharpness is a factor for me, I tend to be more interested

in colour & contrast (CS2 only goes so far in sorting low contrast & washed out

colour without spending stupidly large amounts of time fixing things).

Not an answer, but I have a similar, older lens 70-210 f4 AF. I find it very sharp, but slow AF.

On the D80, hand-holding shots past 135 mm is difficult. I'm quite curious as to how it

compares to the 70-300 VR as I am considering modernizing.

I didn't test the two lenses side-by-side, but I had used the 70-210 a good deal when I got the 70-300mm VR AF-S. The 70-300mm was so good, particularly in the focal lengths that overlap, and VR made such a difference for hand-held shots, that I couldn't find any use for the 70-210, and sold it.

I have to agree with Hector. I not sure that there is another lens out there that can give you more of what you want than the 70-300 VR. I to am consideruing selling my 70-210.