70-300mm Nikon or Sigma

[jono_allen]

<p>Hello.<br>

I would like to know what yous think of the sigma 70-300mm D F4-5.6 APO DG macro, It will be used on my Nikon D80, or should I save up for the Nikon AFS VR 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G IF-ED. I have a Nikorr 18-135mm on it at the moment.<br>

Thanks</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>$ave up for the Nikkor AF-S VR version.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I have the Nikon 70-300 VR and I think it's a great lens. Some people say it's a little soft at 300 but that's not my experience, mine is sharp all the way from 70 to 300. (I also like my 18-135 for it's sharpness.) For now I use a D70s, but will go to D300s as soon as I save up.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Don't forget the Nikon 70-300mm AF-D ED zoom. It doesn't have VR (which is fine with me as I don't shoot in low light) but it is sharp and can be found used for less than $200. I like this lens very much.</p>

[jono_allen]

<p>Im still debating weather to get VR / OS or not.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>if you need VR, you should save up. if you don't, dave's suggestion is a good one.<br>

btw, not that it's bad, but there's a lot of overlap in your lens coverage. is 135mm limiting you on reach? or you have a long range plan on complementing the 70-300mm range later with a wide to medium zoom?</p>

[mccosh]

<p> <br>

I also have the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens and love it and agree with Michael, mine is also sharp all the way from 70 to 300. I upgraded from the 70-300mm AF-D ED zoom that Dave recommends. The VR version is a much better lens apart from just the VR addition. However that said if you are on a tight budget the cheaper lens is still a great choice and I got some great photo's from it.

<p> <br>

If you can afford the more expensive VR version then I would highly recommend it, I wouldn't swap mine for anything. Remember that at 300mm on a D80 this lens is equivalent to a 450mm on a 35mm camera that's 9 times magnification you will find that the VR comes into its own more than you think.

<p> <br>

Happy shooting everyone

<p> <br>

John

<p> </p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[mightypir]

<p>Save up for the NIKON VR version. You will not regret it. </p>

[jono_allen]

<p>What sort of Photography is the VR best for??<br>

I do a lot of sport photography, I mostly shoot Motor Cross, Netball, Rugby, Family, a little sailing, and a few other things. With the 18-135mm I cant fill the frame enough from the side line.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>I heard that the non VR version from Nikon is notoriously soft and has very bad CA problems.</p>

<p>I have used the VR version myself on the D700 with very good results. It is a lens I consider buying myself, because of a lack of funds for a 70-200.</p>

[karl_sch_rlund]

<blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of sport photography [...]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, VR will not help you with this since you need to keep your shutter speeds short anyway. VR is useful to counter camera shake when using slower shutter speeds. That said, I would still recommend the Nikkor 70-300 VR since it's a great lens optically.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Jono, I have owned the Sigma 70-300mm D F4-5.6 APO DG macro. My version had the "Super" designation though my understanding is that this does not mean much other than to increase the cost. I think you will gain some sharpness at the long end with the Nikon 70-300mm VR that the Sigma 70-300mm doesn't have. Photozone.de has a review of a Canon mount Sigma 70-300mm and also the Nikon 70-300mm in both the VR and non VR versions. It always comes down to how much you want to spend. Good luck in deciding. Andy

 

</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>Find a way to get the funds for the Nikon 70-300 VR. Have a yard sale or deliver pizz's on weekends. This zoom lens is worth it and you will love it.</p>

[ronni]

<p>You will need VR, when you get speed below 1/125 especially at focal length 300mm.<br>

If i'm not wrong the ideal speed for long lens min 1/focal length,<br>

If not using VR lens at 300mm you need speed 1/300 to avoid shake., except you have very steady hand.<br>

Nikon 70-300 VR is good chooise<br>

</p>

 

[ifti]

<p>Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G ED VR has given me sharp pictures. I have used it for:<br>

1: Portraits in well lit living room.<br>

2: Flowers picture and at times it is better and more convenient than my macro lens (Tamron 90mm).<br>

3: For my bird shots that are at a reasonable distance with remarkable details. I ignore the birds out of reach for this lens. (I am not going to get 500mm lens ever).<br>

I have only one sigma lens 135-400 and that after few uses have stayed in the closet.<br>

To me this is a best lens with very good quality at its price. I am an amatuer in photography. Regards, ifti</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The Nikon 70-300 VR would be my first choice. Adorama has them refurbished by Nikon for $399.95. My second choice would be the Sigma 70-300 OS. There are two non-VR Nikon 70-300's. The G version is inexpensive, but not very good. The ED version is better than the G version. I recommend getting VR or OS. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.</p>

[jono_allen]

<p>I think i'll go with the 70-300 vr then. Thanks everyone for helping.</p>

[dbgagnon1]

<p>I am currently using the D80 with the Nikon 70-300 VR. I have had great success with the lens at all focal lengths 70-300. My opinion is to save for the Nikon VR lens.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>I have not used the sigma but I have used the nikon and it is a great lens for the money. The VR is key in my opinion and worth any extra money. I would not own a telephoto that does not have VR or some variant of it (os is vc etc.)</p>

[martin_neuss]

<p>I must admit that I had neither of both lenses in my hands, but looking at the technical (check <a href="http://www.lreviews.info">http://www.lreviews.info</a>) tests I would say the Nikon lens does a better Job at a higher price.</p>