Nikon 70-300 vr - is it any good?

[joel_blacher]

<p>next post plase : )</p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>Just read this thread...like I said...you're better off trying it yourself cuz evaluations are all over the place. I didn't follow that advice when I went down that road...my mistake. There's another site that has posters from time to time who claim that the 70300VR has IQ that is equal to a 300 f4 prime. That's the kind of statement that pretty much dashes your credibility among experienced photographers. Unfortunately there are inexperienced shooters trying to learn, and some of them listen to advice like that. You really can't know if someone's personal criteria is anywhere near what yours is. Get one try it...can't lose that way.</p>

[bo_kral]

<p>When it was released the gurus of reviewing missed the fact it is better than anything else in that range (and at f4 and up the best of all 70-200 etc.). So till today we are trying to convince each other that it is really good. Stop shopping - just try it.</p>

[ton_de_vries]

<p>Hi,<br>

I had the opportunity to use a 70-300VR over the weekend. I was not impressed with the sharpness, below is a100% crop of a shot taken at 270mm, 1/500 F5.6. I welcome comments if I did something wrong, or is this the level I should expect.<br>

Thanks for your help,<br>

Ton </p><div></div>

[ton_de_vries]

<p>Figured it out; my sunpack UV filter adds softness to the pictures. Does anybody have a recommendation for another brand of filter, or should I refrain from UV filters in geneal, since most lenses have pretty good UV coating these days?<br>

Any advice is appreciated,<br>

Ton</p>

[wmk]

<p>I just replaced my 70-300 ED (which I was never happy with) with this lens and I am pretty impressed. Even aside from the VR, it seems heads and shoulders above the 70-300 ED. Granted, it's no 70-200 VR (or even 80-200 F2.8 ED) but for the money its pretty good. And it is lighter than those two lenses (but heavier and larger than the 70-300ED because the filter size goes from 62mm to 67mm)</p>

<p>It seems sharp from 70-200, with some softness creeping in above that (but going to F8 makes it sharp there too)<br>

Autofocus seems plenty fast to me, much faster than the 70-300ED which tended to hunt<br>

I like the color rendition better than the lens it is replacing.</p>

<p>Here are a couple of test shots (Exif data etc is also posted)<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamkimeria/sets/72157622810631314/</p>

[wmk]

<p>O.K This is a follow up of my comments on the 70-300VR above. I spent a few days with it on safari and I was very impressed.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamkimeria/sets/72157622976778991/</p>

<p>Sure, I would have loved a faster lens to throw stuff out of focus, but when you factor in the price difference between this lens and the 70-200 VR + 1.4TC, this lens is a steal. And the VR is phenomenal, works as advertised.<br>

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.</p>

[christian_lagereek]

<p>Being a commercial photographer using Nikon all my life and mostly Prime optics. Well I tested my wifes 70-300vr on my D3X camera and BOY!! was I surprised, from 70 to 200 and at f8, f11, its tack-sharp! yes at 70 mil its even sharper then the bigger brother, the 70-200vr.<br>

If you dont need fast action optics, etc, dont be a fool, paying three times the price for the 70-200vr.<br>

This 70-300vr is brillant, light and easy to manage and gives exactly the same results as my 70-200.2.8vr.<br>

best.</p>

[sa_a_manojlovi_]

<p>I think it is sharp enough at 300mm, the added reach gives you much more detail than the even sharper 70-200 f2.8 at f5.6.<br>

heres a comparison between 70-300 and 80-200 f2.8: <a href="http://www.siviz.com/lens-test/7-nikon-zoom-bokeh-comparison-80-200mm-f28-vs-70-300mm-vr">http://www.siviz.com/lens-test/7-nikon-zoom-bokeh-comparison-80-200mm-f28-vs-70-300mm-vr</a></p>

[glen_sansone1]

<p>Wall and chart shooters like to pick on this lens, or they beat it up for not being a 2.8. It's perfectly adequate for 95% of the shooters out there. It serves a purpose well. For those who demand the best of the best because they feel thier pictures will be better also don't mind paying for it and carrying it around. That's a choice. Jay Maisel and Moose Peterson (and others) seem not to have a problem with the 70-300 (for appropriate applications) and Maisel has taken some pretty amazing pictures with it. What have you done with that $2500 lens?There's definitely a indian/arrow argument on the underside of this debate. A great picture is a great picture, no matter what lens takes it. Ones images are no better because a $2500 lens was used to capture it. A crappy image still sucks no matter how sharp, contrasty or colorful it is. But, this lens is cheap enough to give it a try. I have one because I don't want to always carry my 80-200 2.8 -- it's heavy. Plus, on a bright day when I could use a little extra reach, this lens is fantastic, and it has no equal in its price range. </p>