Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR VS. 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF

[esha_momeni]

I am a photojournalist student. I am so confused. I want to buy a zoom lens and

can not decide which one to get. The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR or 70-

300mm f/4-5.6G AF. The price is important but if it makes so much difference I

rather to pay 400$ and get better results.

 

Thanks

[mac_mcanirlin]

There are some issues with sharpness with the "G", mostly when less than f8. I have the G and I am mostly happy with it. If it is afordable for you, then get the VR.

[elliot1]

A lot depends on what and how you shoot.

 

A better choice might be the 55-200 lens (about $150) or the 55-200 VR (about $250). There is virtually no difference from 200mm to 300mm and in my opinion, having owned the 70-300 and currently using the 55-200, the 55-200 will give you much better pictures.

 

I have no experience with the new VR lens. If you can, try them both for yourself and see which you like better.

[tim_knight]

Esha, I have the 70-300 VR zoom and love it, but can see where the 55-200 VR zoom would be a very good choice for what you need considering the difference in cost. Both zooms have owners who are very happy with their zoom lens.

[stevea]

Unless you're doing distance shooting, the 70-300 will be too long. On a field of view perspective, its like a 105-450mm lens. The VR version is better than the prior versions and is very sharp optically. The VR is very effective. For example I am able to shoot at 300mm with a handheld shutter speed of 1/50 sec. At $479 in B&H it's one of the best bargains - if you need this range.

 

I'd look at the 18-70 kit lens if I were you - simply because it is a more usual range for walking around.

 

Steve Abramson

[ronald_moravec1]

I selected the 55/200 VR rather than the 70/300 VR for the price, 250 vs 500, and the close focus 3 1/2 ft vs 5 ft.

 

The build quality of the 70/300 is better. The 55/200 is high grade plastic with a plastic mount rather than metal. It has a 5 year warrantee, so I`ll let Nikon worry about it.

 

The 55/200 makes fabulous close ups with Leica Elpros 3 and 4 using a 52 to 55 step ring and 55 screw in shade. These are two element ones, not like the cheapie Tiffin ones.

 

The 70/300 covers 24x36 so it will work with a full frame camera should it materalize. I will not get one as it will be really expensive and not necessary for my use.

[Sanford]

I use an older ED 70-300mm Nikkor Zoom, not the G or VR version. Look in the Street Photography section of photo.net. My photo (Red Nails) was taken with a D50 and this lens and cropped more than 50%, so I think this lens, at least my particular copy is VERY sharp. No VR but much smaller, lighter, and less expensive.

[Sanford]

It's under the catagory of "W/NW, Having a smoke"

[ShunCheung]

This topic in this thread is about which 70-300 zoom. Before we start making off-topic suggestions, I'd like to find out which camera body/bodies Esha is using and what type of subject matter she has in mind. There is a fairly big difference between a 200mm and a 300mm. With no details, at least I am not going to pre-judge whether she needs to reach 300mm or not.

[esha_momeni]

Thanks for all the answers, I use D70-S. I am going to Iran and I think I should not get too close to subjects, people would not be comfortable with the camera. I own one 18-70.

[kohanmike]

I have the 70-300 VR and find it to be a great lens. I recently shot rehearsals for the Jr.

Philharmonic of California in a Los Angels school gym with florescent lighting and got great

results with a D70s set to florescent compensation. All the shots are hand held (I was

standing behind the conductor anywhere from ten to fifty feet away from the musicians):

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/rehearsal.htm

[hayward]

The comment above that there is no difference between 200mm and 300mm is incorrect. There are many instances when shooting that 200mm is too short and 300mm is long enough.

[ShunCheung]

Having AF-S and VR are pretty important advantages for a relatively slow 300mm lens. The build quality for the new 70-300mm AF-S VR is considerably better than the very inexpensive 70-300mm/f4-5.6 AF-G and both versions of the 55-200mm AF-S VR. Even at $480, IMO the 70-300mm AF-S VR is still an excellent deal. If you can afford it, I would go for it with no hesitation.

 

For a comparison among 200mm, 300mm, 400mm and 500mm, see this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JztC

The 300mm covers less than half the area a 200mm covers.

[paul_wheeler1]

I cannot give you any advice on the sort of lens you need as a photojournalist, but if you want advice on which 70-300mm lens is best, then I can help. I have owned both.

 

There is no competition. IMHO, the VR lens is built better, it is sharp, even at 300mm, and has much better contrast. Both are slow lenses, but the G lens can only be used in very good light, due to the high shutter speeds needed. This problem is improved greatly by the VR function.

 

Check out: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13

 

If you need a 70-300mm, get the VR. If you buy the G, you won't use it above 200mm as it is too soft, so you may consider buying the 55-200mm VR. Note the 55-200mm VR is a DX, unlike the 70-300mm VR which covers the full frame.

 

By the way, there is a significant difference between 200mm and 300mm!

 

This post is significantly shorter than planned, as my original post was lost, when I clicked on "notify me of responses" before I clicked "Submit" :-(

[mawz]

There's no comparison optically. The 70-300VR is the best of all 4 lenses being discussed (and the 70-300G is the worst). I do concur though that going for one of the 55-200's is likely a better choice for someone on a budget, either 55-200 is noticably better optically than the 70-300G (especially when shooting high-contrast subjects), and for the money, the 55-200's are excellent lenses, especially once you stop them down to f8. I can't really see a need for more length than 200mm on digital for general use (especially shooting on the street).

[Sanford]

There is one thing that concerns me about the VR version. I looked at a demo at Circuit City, the ultimate torture test for equipment, and a rubber seal around the rear mount came off in my hands. Is this some sort of weather seal?

[gaby]

I have the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR version and I'm very happy with it. It does a good job, but it's not the kind to walk around with it... It's for long distance photos.

[angkordave]

My 70-300G lens gave image quality well beyond its price. I had no poor sharpness issues with it at all.

However it is slow focusing and lightweight build makes in unsuitable for pro use. Mine was used for 3 and a half years in both dusty and humid conditions. I considered it expendable, used it to almost to destruction and only replaced it when it became rattly noisy and failed to focus properly.

 

My first replacement was a Nikon 18-200 VR; faster focus, but nowhere as near as good image quality. I now use a 70-200 F2.8VR with 1.4 converter . The combination cost over 10x the price of the 70- 300G. It is obviously better, but I do miss the light weight. The financial consequences of dropping it over the side of a boat, don?t bear thinking about.