nikon 70-300mm VR

[raffal]

<p>Any thoughts about nikon 70-300mm VR ? --is it worth to keep it ? I got Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 , Nikkon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR as well ...-- eventually i'd like to get nikon 70-200mm 2.8... Which one i should keep, which one(s) should go...:) thanks, raf</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Depends on what you want to use it for. I have one and I use it for a light-weight travel kit along with my 16-85 AFS VR - can't beat this combination for weight, IQ, and focal length range. Neither of which will win any low light or shallow DOF contests though.<br>

I had to go through 3 samples of the 70-300 VR to find a good one. First one was very sharp, but was de-centered and the VR acted a bit funny, 2nd one was just not sharp, third, although slightly less sharp than the first one, was acceptable (actually tried a 4th one at a local dealer and it was the least sharp of any of them).<br>

I've found my copy to be really good from 70-250mm. At 250-300mm with good technique and stopping down to f7.1 or f/8 the images are really quite good (not tack sharp, but pretty darn good with a bit of sharpening).</p>

<p>Hope this helps - John</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>gee, that's tough.</p>

<p>all are slightly different. i have the 50-150 and it really fits my style, so i'd keep that. i also have the 70-300 ED and wish i had the VR version, although the ED is great on a tripod and handheld in good light. it's nice to have a lens that goes to 300mm, especially on DX. the 18-200 would seem to be the most disposable, but it does have a high convenience factor. but every comparison i've seen between that and the 70-300 VR has the 70-300 with better IQ.</p>

<p>are those your only lenses? or your only telephoto lenses? do you do a lot of hiking or traveling? how do you feel about frequent lens changes? do you really need two slow long zooms? these are all questions to ponder, but at the end of the day, rafal, i'm not sure anyone can make that decision but you.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>My 70-300 VR was great right out of the box. I was surprised how sharp it is, and the VR is very useful. I intend on getting the Sigma 50-150, and thought I would then go with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, but it looks very big, and the 70-300 sure is compact.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Rafal, it all depends what you shoot.</p>

<p>On the longer side, I have a Nikon 85 1.8, a Sigma 50-150, a Nikon 180/2.8 and the cheap Nikon 70-300G (not VR). I only use the 70-300 for shots that are from 200-300, or for holiday shots when I want to travel as light as possible. As the 250-300 range is the very worst of this lens, needless to say that I do not use it that much. Actually, I'm trying to convince myself that I should sell the 70-300G, and buy a Sigma 120-400 or 150-500 instead.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Moose Peterson reccomends the 70-300VR highly.</p>

<p>It all depends on your shooting style....</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Personally, I'd trade in the 18-200 for a 16-85VR... the 2 extra millimeters of wide angle are more useful, and both the sigma and then 70-300VR should beat the 18-200 on the long side easily.<br>

But as said, it depends on your shooting style, and what you use the lenses for. Without such info, we're all kind of guessing here.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Why not keep them all? They all have different intended purposes and uses.</p>

<p>If you have to sell one due to financial concerns, sell the one you use least often.</p>

[ivan_verschoote1]

<p>As a D700 owner, I've bought the 70-300 VR a few weeks ago, only for travelling.<br>

I have the 70-200/2.8 VR, and while this is a very good lens indeed, it is way too heavy and too cumbersome to take along on long and hard worldwide trips.<br>

I'v done some side by side tests and it is really surprising too see that the 70-300 VR almost optically equals the 70-200/2.8 VR in the 70 to 200 mm reach. The 70-300 delivers good but not excellent results above 200 mm. However, stopping down to f8 at 300 mm really improves IQ.<br>

Is it worth it: YES, and its a keeper in my heavy bag.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>Like other posters say, it depends on what you need it for. As for me, I have both 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 VR. The former is more serious work and the latter is for more casual walkaround and/or trip. And I tell you that 70-300 is as good as 70-200, except it isn't with less light or lower F number(wider F).</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have and like all three lenses. I suggest that you keep both lenses when you add the 70-300 VR because each has it's own uses. The 50-150 f/2.8 is used almost entirely at the zoo and aquarium for shooting moving animals under low light.</p>

<p>If you have to sell either the 50-150 f/2.8 or the 18-200 VR to get the 70-300 VR I'd sell the 50-150. The 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR are a good combination. Sometimes I'll carry just the 18-200 VR and sometimes I'll carry it and the 70-300 VR and use the 18-200 VR like an 18-100 and use the 70-300 VR for anything longer. As much as I like the 50-150 f/2.8, I use the 70-300 VR much more. Of course, you may find just the opposite.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If you have to sell either the 50-150 f/2.8 or the 18-200 VR to get the 70-300 VR I'd sell the 50-150.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>mark, i cant emphasize enough the versatility of a compact 2.8 telezoom which covers the important portrait range entirely. the other lenses are all 5.6 at the long end, so if there's one lens i'd definitely keep, it's the 50-150.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Eric, I agree with you. I have grown very fond of the 2.8 lenses. I also think that 5,6 in the long run will not be satisfactory.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I have owned the 18-200 and sold it because I didn't like the image quality. The only problem is if you sell it you don't have anything wider than 50mm. If that meets your photography needs then I would keep the Sigma. The Sigma has very good image quality. After selling the 18-200 you could spend a little money on a nice wide angle like the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Eric, I have all three lenses and I recommended that he not sell any of them. I said that if he had to sell one to buy the 70-300 VR then I'd sell the 50-150 f/2.8. I said that I use the 50-150 f/2.8 less than the 70-300 VR or 18-200 VR. Also as Brian says, if he sells the 18-200 VR then the widest focal length he'll have is 50mm.</p>

<p>It's true that the 18-200 and 70-300 are not ideal portrait lenses. However he may not need a portrait lens and if he does, he can pick up a 50mm f/1.8 for $135 new ( Adorama) or less used.</p>

<p>It really depends on his particular needs and preferences. I think that an 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR is a more useful combination than a 50-150 f/2.8 and 70-300 VR. He could add an 18-55 or 17/18-50 f/2.8 to the 50-150 and 70-300 but it will add to the cost. A lot of people on this forum knock the 18-200 VR, but I love mine. I make very nice 8.5 x 11 prints from shots I took with it even at 200mm wide open, although I do try to shoot at f/8, 11, or 16.</p>

[raffal]

<p>To all of you , I kindly appreciate your answers! This is the best forum photography on the web, period ! thanks, raf<br>

Ps. After all, i probably will keep all of them: 18-200mm - i use for travel mostly-(dont like to change lenses too often)<br>

50-150mm - for low light, some sports,portraits<br>

70-300mm - like for the reach, animals, birds shots ( some of course, no safaris...lol)</p>