70-300 VR: Is it available & reviewed yet?

[stephen_fassman]

Would this lens better compliment the 18-70 kit lens vs buying the 18-200 instead, as the"kit" lens?

[ian_scotland]

I've had the 18-200mm VR for about six months now (never been off the camera since I got it) and I've ordered the 70-300mm (which is expected in the UK this week). The big selling point on both of these lenses - for me - is the VR facility. The two lens together will give me VR from 18mm right through to 450mm (I'm using a D50 until my wife picks up the hints I've been dropping about how wonderful a D80 wold be !). The ability to handhold and produce sharp images even at slower shutter speeds is a big bonus. Hope this helps. Ian

[Peter_in_PA]

Stephen,

 

I too might want one, but it has not been reviewed yet, as no one has seen it.

 

But with the 18-200 on, I find that I almost never run out of reach at either direction. The

huge advantage THAT lens has is that you can have one lens on the camera for walk-around

vacation style photography. changing lenses outside is a pain. The 18-200 would not, in

short, complement your 18-70. It would replace it. If the 70-300 is any good, it would

complement, imho, either of those lenses.

[klix]

IMHO, the 18-70mm is better (sharper, more contrast, less distortion) at 18mm to 70mm compared to the 18-200mm. The super zoom has the VR advantage. However, IMHO, VR has greater value on the long end than the wide end.

 

If the 70-300mm VR proves to be at least the same level of quality as the 18-70mm, then I would rather have the 2-lens combo (18-70mm and 70-300mm VR) rather than the all in one zoom.

 

KL

[elliot1]

The difference between 200mm and 300mm is insignificant. If you don't want to constantly change lenses, go with the 18-200.

[ShunCheung]

If you add a 1.4x teleconverter to a 200mm/f2.8 lens, you'll have a 280mm/f4 lens. That is something quite a few people attempt to do, as there is clearly a fairly significant difference between a 200mm and 280mm.

 

Incidentally, the 70-300mm AF-S VR is being delivered in Asia and Europe now:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21188576

[klix]

<i>The difference between 200mm and 300mm is insignificant</i>

<p><p>

About as insignificant as the difference between basketball and baseball.

[dean.wette]

I have the 18-200mm and have been wondering whether I also want to get the 70-300mm VR. I'd be using this for endurance (ALMS) sports car races. Is the difference between 200 and 300 really that insignificant, or would it be worthwhile?

 

I would like something longer than 200mm, but it needs to work handheld (mostly in daylight). I don't want to carry a tripod around the track, in addition to other supplies (water, scanner w/headphones, etc). Maybe a monopod.

[ShunCheung]

Whether something is "significant" is a matter of opinions. Something "significant" to you might not be significant to me.

 

Speaking of cars, here is a comparison between two shots taken by a 200mm and a 300mm. I put an outline for 300mm in the 200mm shot. At least to me, the difference is pretty big. If you shoot car races, I would get a lens that reaches to 300mm, and I would at least try to use a monopod, although the 70-300mm VR has no tripod collar.<div></div>

[dean.wette]

Shun: Thanks for the comparison shot. I think that's enough to convince me getting the 70-300. I'm new to all this (coming from a Canon G2), so trying to sort out the equipment I'll need.

 

What's a decent monopod? Nothing to break the bank, but light enough and collapsible for straping to my backpack, but still support the weight of my D200 kit.

[dean.wette]

I have another question about this. We will also attend the Formula 1 USGP this year at Indy. For race day, we will have good seats (Stand A Penthouse), so for that I could take a tripod (which I still need to get). The race is mid-day in June, so usually plenty of light.

 

For this case, would it be possible to put a 1.4x or 1.7x TC on this lens? I assume that will make the lens no faster than f/8 or f/11? Would it still AF?

[ShunCheung]

I am not sure which TC can fit the 70-300mm AF-S VR. In any case, my experience is that Nikon AF pretty much reaches its limit at f5.6. If your combo's maximum aperture is f8, AF is close to hopeless.

 

Additionally, optically, I kind of doubt that you'll get good results adding a 1.4x TC on a rather slow zoom.

[erik_loza]

There is one thing we can all count on: There will be a comprehensive review of this lens very soon by Ken Rockwell.

[abbilder]

to Shun: Indeed, the tripod collar is a thing I miss on the 70-300 VR. It is a long lens, especially zoomed out at 300 mm. The VR cannot replace the use of a tripod.

 

But Nikon has a good tradition not to give lenses a tripod collar in the first batch. Look at the first version of the 80-200 AF.

 

Best wishes

Axel