Nikon 70 - 300 VR lens ...

[cory_reynolds]

<p>Hello! I would like some feedback on the nikon 70 - 300mm VR lens. I am thinking of buying this lens but i would like to hear feedback (pros vs. cons). I know overall this is a good lens to have. I cant afford the 70 - 200 VR, so I thought the 70 - 300 would be a better fit for me. I have the nikon D70s, eventually going to upgrade it sometime next year. Thanks for your comments. <br>

Cory</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What sorts of things do you photograph?</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>VR is good if you espect to take a lot of pictures of things that do not move under poor light, like indoor still lifes or portraits (kinda silly with a 70-300mm zoom lens though). Typical outdoor daylight shots do not need VR. If your primary purpose is outdoors during the day then you could save a heck of a lot of money and get a used Nikon 70-300mm ED lens. Apparently it outperforms the VR version, making the VR option extremely expensive! Yes you can in fact handhold a 70-300 at about 1/350 to 1/500s.</p>

<p>The only problem may be your camera body. I think the D70S will work with the non-VR lens but make sure before buying, since it is only an AF lens not AF-S. If you do invest in some of the superb AF lenses it means that you will be limited in the future to bodies with an AF motor like the D90, D300 and up, but the AF lenses are worthwhile. </p>

 

[kohanmike]

<p>I have the 70-300 VR and it is AF-S. I use it with a D70s and find the lens to be excellent. I was very surprised at the crisp image quality, and mine is sharp through the entire focal range. It's main drawback is the small aperture at the long end, but I have to say, the VR does a great job of improving stability.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Apparently it outperforms the VR version</em></p>

<p>According to tests carried out by photozone.de and slrgear.com, the VR version is optically superior to the older ED D version. Also, since the angle of view with a DX camera at 300mm corresponds to a 450mm on a 35mm camera, and as the maximum aperture is f/5.6 at the long end, VR is extremely useful in such a lens. Quoting slrgear conclusions ". Other than the slight softness and rather high CA from 200-300mm though, the performance of the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor (yeesh, that's a mouthful) was really excellent." While for the ED D version, "It's reasonably priced and reasonably well-constructed lens, but the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D really doesn't make the grade optically, at least not at its longest focal lengths." Check these reviews out; the MTF data (and blur index graph) differences at the short end are rather marked. Not a small development by Nikon, although neither lens excels at 300mm.</p>

[ray_rg]

<p>One more vote to Nikon 70-300mm VR, I was able to take indoor picture using 1/8s @ 70mm and 1/13s @ 300mm non-moving objects using 70-300mm VR on D90. btw, I have received my lens few days back... so still learning the lens.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Cory, I think most will agree that the 70-300VR is a very good lens for the money, but the real point is in Matt's question. It's not a great lens for everything... As already said, and as example: VR helps, but not for moving items. For portraits (the shorter end, say 70-105), it lacks a bit the option of real fast lenses, with apertures of f/2.8 and below, to have the background completely out of focus. You could mount a diopter on the 70-300 and do some very nice macros with, but dedicated macro lenses are really in a different class. And I bet there are more examples of specialised use versus the versatility of this lens. </p>

<p>So, yes, the 70-300VR to me is the best offer in its range and very good value for money, but depending on your uses there may be better options available.</p>

[sgireland]

<p>I was considering a 80-200 f 2.8 lens (Sigma) or this 70-300mm VR Nikon. I went with the Nikon and used the left over funds to get myself an SB-600. My reasoning for going with the 70-300 is that I do most of my shooting in that zoom range outdoors during the day and didn't need the option of using a higher shutter speed as the 80-200 f 2.8 would allow. <br>

If you are going to be shooting in daylight the Nikon 70-300 will likely suit your needs but if you regular shoot a kids indoor hockey game or other indoor fast action the you may need the faster lens.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I've had the 70-300 VR for about a year now and have grown to like it quite a lot. It's comparatively slow speed - focus and aperture - really put me off at first. Now, a year later I look back and realize how many terrific shots I've gotten with it and wouldn't part with it for anything. I might get the 70-200/2.8 someday, but I still would not part with the 70-300 VR for it's wider range and smaller size.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>Cory,<br>

I have this lens and I will not look back at all. It is very sharp, fast and it does provide good quality images. I have nothing bad to say about this lens, it is simple superb. For the price you are paying, it is worth the money, trust me. The VR works great and this lens is almost on my camera every single time that I shoot. For close-up photography, you will get a very acceptable blurry background, to photograph faces as well and for general purpose, you will not regret it.</p>