Looking for sage wisdom and advice on 70-300mm zooms

[jim_carnevale]

<p>I'm a serious hobbyist and after playing with 35mm photography for 30+ years I've moved completely into digital with the recent purchase of a D90. I have the Nikkor 18-200 as an everyday walk-around and it's an amazing piece of glass. However, on a recent trip out to shoot some wildlife, I found myself in situations where a 300mm would be nice to have.</p>

<p>There are 2 Nikkor, 5 Sigma, 2 Tamron and possibly some other lenses that zoom to 300mm. All are at or below the $500 price point with some going as low as the $150 range. Most (if not all) are auto focus and some have some optical stabilization. With so many to choose from it's getting to be a tough decision.</p>

<p>I'd like to hear from those who shoot 70-300mm lenses. Tell me what you have, why you like it (or not) and what are your recommendations.</p>

<p>Please - no recommendations for the high ticket glass. This is going to be an occasional-use lens and the top price point is $500.</p>

<p>Many thanks<br>

Jim</p>

 

[Jerry_]

<p>One vote for the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR Nikkor lens. It work well; and if you decide to chase bugs and butterflys -- the 4.5 feet close-focus distance at 300mm fills the frame well.</p>

<p>For birds: it depends on how close you can get. The longer-than-300mm lens might be a better choice for small birds. Larger birds (buzzards, hawks, pelicans) can be captured with the VR 70-300mm Nikkor.</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_carnevale]

<p>Thanks Jerry - that one is on my short list. Granted, you get what you pay for, but I'm curious to hear about the lesser expensive and 3rd party ones too. Any thoughts??</p>

<p>BTW - I enjoyed your railroad shots too.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Jerry may be a sage. I'm not a sage, but I agree with him.</p>

<p>I got a friend of mine the 70-300mm VR. It has really decent sharpness even out at 300mm, which is nice for him shooting football and lacrosse pix of his kids. The AF-S focus is helpful it that regard, too. The VR is nice for shooting relatively still subjects in somewhat lower light. </p>

<p>The thing about Nikon is that over 200mm, you get to the 70-300mm VR lens and then the prices jump, with the 80-400mm VR going for $1,650 with the U.S. warranty and the 200-400mm VR and VR II weighing in at $5,700 and $7K. Like you, I don't shoot much telephoto, and would buy the 70-300mm VR lens, if I were going to buy a lens in that focal length range.</p>

[noreen]

<p>A vote for the 70-300 VR II, which also allows about a 4.5" close-focus distance. (But my old Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super, which it replaced, focused even closer and I miss that.) It's not heavy and I find it to be sharp enough for my needs. <br>

I've started to use it for birds (with a D300) but do wish for something longer and even sharper (see the recent discussion on bird photography with the D90 <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00X1SR">here</a>.)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.noreen-doyle.com/graphics/blogphotos/fauna/_NDZ9510-xy-sm-MagnificentFrigateBird-Full.jpg" alt="" /><br>

(D300, 70-300 VR @300)</p>

[noreen]

<p>Typo above: 4.5" (inches) should be, of course, 4.5' (feet).</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Adorama has the 70-300 VR factory refurbished for 400 bucks, too! It's in and out of stock, but as I type it it's in stock.</p>

<p>Also, B&H has some refurbs on this lens from time to time, too. I ordered one and it arrives tomorrow. Can't wait to see how it behaves. I'm selling my 18-200 since I won't really probably ever use it again (even though I still like it).</p>

[iversonwhite]

<p>I have the Nikon 70-300mm VR, and the Tamron 70-300mm, macro. The Tamron was less than $200., but it hunts for focus more than the Nikon and I don't feel it's as sharp. I keep it for the macro. My only complaint about the Nikon--because I also shoot film, is the slow max aperture, especially at 300mm.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>I'll join in with another vote for the 70-300 from Nikon. I used an 18-200 (on a D70) for many months and when I started using the 70-300 on my D90 I was impressed with two things: 1) it's sharpness, and 2) that I really like that extra 100mm! I don't think you could go wrong with this lens.</p>

[pge]

<p>I honestly don`t use this range very much, so when I was shopping for a lens I was also quite concerned about the price point. Maybe $2000 is ok if you are going to use a lens every day, but its way to much for me who is going to use the lens 8 times a year. I decided on the Nikon 70-300mm vr lens and I was absolutely amazed by it. Color and contrast are great. Recently I picked up an old manual focus 300mm lens that I have and I learned all over again how amazing vr is at the 300mm range. With the no vr lens I could keep about a quarter of my shots, with my 70-300mm vr lens all of my daytime 300mm shots are sharp.</p>

[mlg28]

<p>An out-of-the-box idea that worked well for me: consider buying a used Nikkor 300 mm f/4 prime. I bought one on Craig's List for $550. Like you, I had an 18-200 mm, as well as a 80-200 f/2.8, but needed extra length for shooting gliders. </p>

<p>I found that I was using my zooms at the 200 mm end all the time. I therefore decided that I would seldom use the range below 300 mm were I to buy a zoom, and chose the prime lens.<br>

Regards,<br />Martin </p>

[sjoerd_leeuwenberg]

<p>Great timing for your question,<br>

you can try out this one:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10081010tamronsp70300mm.asp<br>

and let us know how well it performs.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>Another vote for the Nikon 70-300 VR; sharp, light enough to carry; but one word of warning - it's incompatible with all teleconverters and close-up extension tubes. So if your tastes develop that way, you'll be limited.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Well, no consumer zoom like this that's 5.6 at the long end is a candidate for extension tubes, is it.</p>

<p>I would definitely not consider that Tamron until you see reviews. Some Tamrons, like the 17-50, are great. Some, like their ultra-wide zooms... not so much.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>jim, the 70-300 VR is totally worth it. in fact, it's really the only lens you should consider. let me explain: i have the 70-300 ED. decent lens, not bad when stopped down to f/8. but not very handholdable, except at higher shutter speeds, due to camera shake past 200mm. so basically, i'm limited to using this lens in good light or on a tripod. for that reason, i'd recommend the 70-300 VR, which is one of nikon's better bargains. all the other VR lenses which go past 200 are super-pricey.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I'll second what Eric said. I have the non-VR 70-300 Nikkor and find that quite a lot of my shots have at least some motion blur. Even at shutter speeds of 1/400. Some of this, I'm sure, is probably poor technique on my part. From what I've read, the VR version is also different optically and seems to get much better reviews.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>If you can find a used Nikon 300mm f4 AF for your budget that would be the perfect fit for your current zoom. Wow, I see keh.com has several Nikon 300mm f4 AF lenses to choose from for under $550 USD. The AF-S versions are much more expensive.</p>

<p>I have been photographing for 30 years so I have learned the techniques that can make up for not having VR, and I am not a lowlight event portrait type of shooter for which VR is good. Generally one does not use a 300mm lens in these sorts of situations anyway and you already have VR in your 18-200 when you absolutely can't take the picture without it.</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 ED AF is an excellent used lens to consider and is currently available at keh.com for under $150 USD. Make sure when you are looking that it is the "ED" version not just the D or the G. It is essentially the same as the VR version except you're not paying the extra $400 for the VR. I have tested this lens and it is very good. Did not test as well as my 80-200/2.8 AF-S with TC-14E II but I was still quite impressed with it.</p>

<p>Thank goodness you bought the D90, so that you don't have to buy the AF-S lenses. I found the focus with the 70-300 ED on the D90 to be very good with no hunting. My D2X did seem to focus it ever so slightly faster with it's larger body motor.</p>

<p>If you are primarily shooting in daylight outdoors then achieving shutter speeds of 1/500 to 1/1000 at ISO 100 is not much of a problem, and if the sun is on the horizon then the D90 is quite capable of getting you to ISO 200 to 400, or even higher. If light disappears completely you've got the 18-200 to fall back on.</p>

[rsands]

<p>Adding $.02 from a rank amateur, the 70-300 VR is outstanding. I'm thoroughly impressed with its sharpness, even full out at 300mm, and even in some lower-light-than-ideal conditions. All the shots in my gallery as of today were shot with that lens. I've attached one in particular.</p>

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

[john_tran14]

<p>The answer is not so hard as you think. Your budget is $500 and you need 300mm. The best choice will be whichever lens that has focal length 300mm and the price tag is closest to $500 (and not over it)</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>I've never owned the Sigma or Tamron versions, but I've owned all three Nikon versions. </p>

<p>I started with the "G" version. It wasn't bad up to 200mm. However, I found that the photos I got from it lacked contrast. Beyond 200mm, I found the lens to be a bit soft. </p>

<p>I moved to the AF-D version, and liked it. The contrast problem mostly disappeared, and the images were sharper up to about 250mm. Beyond that, the images were mostly soft if they were printed larger than 8x10.</p>

<p>I picked up the AF-S VR version a couple years ago. It produces images with excellent contrast and they're sharp. Not as sharp as the 70-200, but for the price difference, I can't complain. Most of the softness beyond 250mm is gone, but I think that a lot of that is due to the VR reducing camera shake - as I only use it hand-held.</p>

<p>If you've got the cash ready, I'd suggest going with the VR version. You obviously need the extra reach, and that means you probably need VR.</p>

[shineofleo]

<p>Interestingly, Tamron just released a new lens SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD lens for Nikon. But I doubt it could compete with Nikon's 70-300 VRII</p>

[mightypir]

<p>I would recommend that you don't waste your time and money on anything other than a 70-300VR. I made the mistake of going for the 70-300G lens first, and when I upgraded I was shocked at the improvement in IQ and usability. VR is not a joke or a novelty, it will really help and is very effective, more so than the VR in my 70-200.<br>

It really is an outstanding lens and will be well worth the cost. With your D90 it will give you an equivalent of a 450mm crop, which is pretty good for wildlife, sports etc. Which also underscores the need for VR. </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Although the 70-300 VR is an excelent lens, I'd also agree to think about a used/refurb 300mm F4 ...either af-d or AF-s,<br />But let me put something else in the mix to to spice things up.... :-) : The Tokina 80-400 , its just within your budget :<br /><a href="http://www.adorama.com/TN80400PNKAF.html">http://www.adorama.com/TN80400PNKAF.html</a><br />Has No VR though ........</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Another vote for the 70 - 300 VR II lens. I love it. had the old 70 - 300 G lens but the newer one leaves it for dead.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>As someone who bought the cheap Tamron 70 - 300 Macro, I'll tell you it is soft when you go longer than 200. At F8 from 70 - 200 it does nicely, but that is not what you really need here.<br>

Bite the bullet and get the Nikkor.</p>