Zoom Telephoto Lenses

<p>

<p>I would like some advice on choosing a zoom telephoto lens. I currently use the Nikon 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 (non VR) which was loaned to me when I started getting into photography. The distance I get with the lens is great, but I can never get sharp pictures and I really feel I am missing out on not having VR. I really need to upgrade this lens. I would mainly use this lens for sports, wildlife (birds), and taking photos of my dogs. I also take pictures for a local humane society and have to take pictures of very active (not exactly well mannered) dogs, so a good zoom would be very useful (especially because some dogs are rather shy with new people and big cameras). For this I would need a versatile and fast focusing lens too, since they don't exactly hold still and can be 30 yards to up in your face in seconds. I don't mind spending some money on this lens, but I am not a professional by any means, so I don't need the biggest and best. Just one that will get the job done. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.</p>

</p>

<p>I assume you are using some cropped sensor camera. You can keep using that lens or spend about $150 for the 70-210mm D for faster focusing. I don't think VR will work for you because it needs time to kick in. A faster focusing camera is a good idea. You may need to raise ISO to reduce shaking, so a camera with better high ISO performance is also good</p>

<p>I'm sorry. I should have mentioned I have a D90.</p>

<p>Faster glass is probably the 'cheapest' answer. A used 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S would do or, I've heard good things about the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 with HSM (AF-S) They won't give you quite the range at the long end but they can be used wide open which will help considerably with the slow shutter speeds. I don't know whether your unsharpness is subject movement with an OK backgound or everything is soft ie everything is moving!. With your D90, don't be afraid to use the higher ISOs (800+) and try software removal of noise afterwards. VR may help with stationary objects in dim light, but if it's alive it will usually be moving more than you, so won't help much.</p>

<p>R. - if you're keen on the 300mm end (and the 70-300 variants are, I believe, least sharp here) then going to a -200mm may be a problem for you. The 55-300 is allegedly a bit slow to focus; the 80-400 is worse. The 28-300 may be better (from reviews, I've not tried it). If you're not in a hurry and it might be in your budget, there are rumours that the 80-400 might be up next for an AF-S replacement, which might solve the focus speed problem if you don't need a wide aperture. If it's in-budget and you really want flexibility, I'd check the 50-500 Sigma, but I've not looked at its autofocus speed. Nikon would want you to get the 200-400 f/4, but I doubt you'll like the idea... I think you're stuck between ranges, sadly. Good luck.</p>

<p>The Nikon AF-S VR70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is a much, much better lens than the non-VR versions. It focuses quickly in good light, fast enough for birds in flight.<br>

I have used this lens on D70, D40, D80, D300, and D700; sorry, never had a D90.</p>

<p>As Charles said above, the VR version of the Nikon 70-300mm is far better lens than the non-VR version. I have used it with a D50 and a D90. Look at the discussion and images <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00VVrS"><strong>in this thread</strong></a>.</p>

<p>the problem with the 70-300G and ED lenses is they are very light, which means that the slightest bit of camera shake can blur pictures, unless you are shooting at a very fast shutter speed or on a tripod.</p>

<p>the most obvious upgrade is the 70-300 VR. that's a heavier lens than the G/ED, so it balances better. its also an AF-S lens, so it should focus faster than a screw-drive lens. i'd also consider the new 55-300 VR. for your uses, i'm not sure you need a 2.8 telephoto.</p>

 

<p>I'd been carelessly dismissing the 70-300 VR on the basis of a couple of reviews that weren't entirely blown away by its performance at the 300mm end. That said, I was very happy for a long time with my 70-300 IS Canon, and the VR was released to compete with it with a not-dissimilar performance improvement over the older lenses. Given that people seem happy with the 70-300 VR Nikkor, I'd ignore everything I said about the 80-400 replacement. Apologies for the distraction. :-)</p>

<p>I have been using the Nikon 70-300 VR for a good while now on a D70s and mine is as sharp as can be, even at 300mm. It's fast, clean, the VR has helped me a number of times, I highly recommend this lens.</p>

<p>I have a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR lens. I just got the 70-200 f2.8 VR2 lens.<br>

The 70-300 is sharp, but it cannot give you narrow depth of field and its autofocus is not as fast as the 70-200 f2.8. For fast autofocus, the camera needs a wide aperture so the sensor gets more information.<br>

For static subjects, the 70-300 is very good if you can accept the depth of field limitation.<br>

If you need to focus quickly, the 70-300 is pretty good, but the 70-200 f2.8 is incredibly better.<br>

I'll be sending my 70-300 to Adorama tomorrow. They apparently pay money for used lenses.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your advice and your experiences with some of the Nikon Lenses. I am glad to hear that most people really like their results with the 70-300 VR. I would love the 70-200 f/2.8 but don't know if I want to spend that kind of money right now. Does anyone have any experience or knowledge about the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6? This seems like it would be a good lens based on the versatility of the focal lengths (which would be great when taking pictures of very active puppies). Any thoughts on this lens? Thanks!</p>

<p><strong>@R. Bond</strong><br /><br /><em>I currently use the Nikon 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 (non VR) which was loaned to me when I started getting into photography. The distance I get with the lens is great, but I can never get sharp pictures and I really feel I am missing out on not having VR. </em><br /><br />If you are interested in staying in the 70-300 range, I second <strong>@Charles Beddoe</strong>, I would definitely consider getting the 70-300 VR. I used to have the 70-300 ED (non-VR), and I was never happy with its performance (sharpness and focus speed). When the VR version came out, I sold it and bought the VR version. There is a ton of difference between the two, the VR version is much sharper to my eyes and much faster focusing (in good light).<br /><br />Here are a few images taken using the VR version<br /><br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2795/4377424760_f6f424bafd.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="334" /><br /><br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4376845373_a28a6081c2_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="428" /><br /><br />You can also go to this link to take a look at a full size test image (including relevant exif)<a href=" /> /><br />Its weaknesses? At the longer focal lengths, you have to stop down to about f8 to get the image sharp. That means bright light and/or high iso (your D90 is good at high iso so this may not be much of a concern) and you may not be able to freeze subject motion or use a shallow DOF to isolate your subject.<br /><br />I've heard people rave about the 70-200VR II (but its super expensive), I've also had good things about the 80-200AFD (its $400 more than the 70-300VR). But both those lens leave you short of the 200-300 range.<br /><br /></p>

<p>@OP: Do you have an example of "not sharp pictures"? It could be the lens really being a bad copy, or just the lens is bad in general (I've never shot the non-vr), insufficient shutter speed (boost your iso to compensate!), hand holding technique with long zooms (it is, 450mm equiv fov at 300mm...), focusing techniques.</p>