simon_hickie2 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I currently use a D300 with 16-85mm lens. I would like to add some telephoto capability for architecture detail / landscape detail and candid street / documentary photography. I tend not to do sports or nature photography. Due to back problems I would like to minimise additional weight and avoid using a tripod (a monopod is an option - they give me about an extra stop). In the UK, I can source the following Nikon lenses: new 55-200 VR @ £170, used c. £120 no guarantee; new 55-300 VR @ £229 full Nikon UK guarantee; used 70-300 @ £299 with 6 month guarantee. Off brand, there is also the new Tamron 70-300MM VC to consider at around £355 (the Nikon equivalent is around £390). I'd like to keep the budget below £300 if possible.</p> <p>I either project images at 1400x1050, or print to 15x10 or 16 x 12 inches. For what it's worth, I was dissatisfied with the telephoto performance of my 18-200mm Nikon lens, but find that the 16-85mm gives me the kind of image quality I am looking for, albeit with limited DOF control. Opinions and advice would be most welcome.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsnow Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>The Nikon 70-300mm VR is likely your best bet. It is a good performer and is light enough to keep in a shoulder bag or on camera all day. Not sure about the currency conversion, but in the US it can be purchased used/demo for USD $389 and New for USD $519</p> <p>RS</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>If 200mm is long enough for you, try taking some shots with your lens stopped down to f8 or f10. Processing your images with a program that offers lens specific correction (like DXO for example) will leave you with much improved images over out-of-the-camera JPGs that may satisfy you and save you the cost of buying a new lens. But if you want another lens with longer reach, I agree with Richard - the 70-300mm VR (VR version only) is light in weight and gives excellent IQ throughout its zoom range.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I'm going to suggest the 55-200mm VR and here's why. It's much smaller than the other lenses you mentioned, and for candid photos on the street I think that would be better. It attracts less attention. It's also lighter. The 70-300mm VR wouldn't be a bad choice either, but as I recall it is much larger.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_baker Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I've compared Nikon 70-300VR with 16-85VR on a D300. To my eye, the 70-300 was much better. Actually the comparison also included the 28-105 AFD, and my ranking was 70-300>28-105>16-85, true for all the overlapping focal lengths, ie the 70-300 was noticeably better (sharper and brighter) than the 16-85. The 70-300 is not quite so strong at the telephoto end, where people are saying the new Tamron is sharper. If the long end is not your priority, the Nikkor might serve you better than the Tamron. <br /> Although the 70-300VR is compact compared to alternatives such as 70-200VR, or 80-400VR, I would not call it lightweight for someone with a back problem, or compared to the 16-85. Would you consider a prime lens or a manual focus lens? This would bring 70-150E, or a 135Ais or 200Ais into the equation, among other. <br /> But I agree with a previous poster. The first question is whether the 55-200VR will be satisfactory. This seems the obvious answer, unless you rule it out for some reason.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I LOVE my 70-300 VR. The new Tamron, however, has been reviewed VERY favorably by our own Shun Cheung here on photo.net</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bessler Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Nikon 70-300 VR will give you 105-450mm on your D300 and it has good build quality with a metal metal lens mount. <a href="mailto:B@H">B@H</a> in USA sells a factory refurb for $349.95 USD.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_line Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Reading for key words, I get "Due to back problems I would like to minimise additional weight and avoid using a tripod (a monopod is an option - they give me about an extra stop)" and "I'd like to keep the budget below £300 if possible."<br> <br /> The 80-200/f4.5-5.6D AF Nikkor (11.6 ounces) might work for you. It is a very compact lens. It's fine for most outdoor photography and is not expensive at all. The KEH listing is for US$76. A VR lens would be nice but will be expensive.<br> Review: http://www.bythom.com/80200ens.htm<br /> http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999014590N?r=FE</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>i have the tamron 70-300. it's very good for outdoor photography, but i tend to agree with Kent that it's less suited for street than a smaller lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bessler Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Why not try a <a href="mailto:P@S">P@S</a> camera they are very good with huge zoom ranges and they can fit in a big pocket,they will be much better than lugging that big D300 and lens around.Your back will be glad for syre.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie2 Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Thanks for the replies so far. I do have an old push-pull Nikon 70-210mm AF zoom (not the D version unfortunately), but really do need the VR - hence the alternatives listed. The 70-210 has painfully slow focusing which suggests I might find the 55-200 or 55-300 too slow as well, but by how much I don't know. I owned one of the old 70-210mm constant F4 lenses for a while too, but that had the same slow focusing. I've even considered trading the D300 down to a D90 for weight purposes, but love the D300 handling and metering accuracy. Sounds like some more trips to the chiropractor and a 70-300mm is the best option.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I recommend a used Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 D ED for less than half the price of the latest VR version. For more weight, but I am not sure how much, you could look at a used Sigma 100-300mm f4, constant aperture lens. Even used these are about the same price as the latest Nikon 70-300 VR because of the relatively fast aperture and better optics.</p> <p>I see above that you prefer VR but think about if you really need it for outdoor daylight shots. Even at ISO 100 sunny-16 would provide 1/1000 @ f5.6. Early or late day would need ISO 200 for about 1/500 and overcast situations at f8 is going to put you into the range of 200-800 ISO, so not too bad on a D300. VR is more applicable for ultra low light images taken indoors or at night of non-moving subjects. Something generally not done with a long telephoto lens. </p> <p>Another option to consider is the superb Nikon 180/2.8. Used versions are much cheaper than the 70-300 VR but the superb optics and speed do make it heavier, but not in the very heavy range of the xx-200/2.8 zooms.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 <p>john, the 70-300 ED is vastly inferior to the 70-300 VC and the 70-300 VR. it doesnt get contrasty and sharp until f/8 and it suffers from excess vibration at shutter speeds less than 1/FL. stabilization on any lens over 100mm is a plus IMO, but especially with a lens which goes to 300. i still have the 70-300 ED but its easily my least-used lens for the above reasons. with the tamron's VC i can handhold at 1/25 and 300mm. that means i can use it indoors. besides having a better build, it's also much sharper wide open than the 70-300 ED.</p> <p>a tougher choice is between the 70-300 VC or the 70-300 VR. $350 for a refurb is a pretty good deal. there's a $50 rebate on the tamron though, so they are pretty close in price.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_baker Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 <p>I repeat myself, but can you not try out the 55-200VR in a store and see how the focusing performs? If you are satisfied then buy the used one. It's cheap, it's the smallest, lightest option, it has a decent reputation optically, none of the other options give you much more DOF control, and if you dislike it you can probably sell for close to the same price.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 <p>I compared the 70-300 ED original to a 200/2 and while obviously not in the same category contrast and resolution even wide open was more than acceptable. There are many opinions here on photo.net that suggest that the original is as good as, if not better, than the new VR unit. </p> <p>1/focal length is the key. Even my 400/2.8 AIS can be handheld at shutter speeds of 1/focal length, meaning 1/400 to 1/500, and still freeze camera motion. Of course, I have done this only once or twice simply due to the physical stress required to hold the lens up.</p> <p>If one takes a lot of indoor photos of still subjects at 200 to 300mm without flash then VR would be worth the extra $400.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now