70-300mm VR?

[LilPeteMordino]

What are everyones thoughts on this lense. I only really have the kit lens at the moment and need more zoom.

What other choices do I have for around the same price that could prove better. I think the 300 could be good for me as I am an allaround photographer at the moment. Not staying in one genre. Would obviously buy other lenses as times go on for the smaller sizes. But for now I need something a bit longer?

What do people think of this lens.

[Nikonfreak]

This 70-300 is a tad better than it's predecessor and adds VR and AF-S to the offering. I don't know that it's very much better than it's predecessor but it's adequate for consumer use. Don't expect any miracles and you'll be happy with the lens. It's a half-stop slower than it's previous offering as well. Low light shooting will be a no win situation.

If you can find someone selling a previous version of this lens, you can pick them up for about $100-$150 and it'd do just fine if you have to have this range unless you are using a D40, in which case you have no AF.

For a little more money, you can get the fabulous 300 f/4 AF-S. If you need the tele (which is why you'd want this lens) ... I find that most of the time you spend your time on the longer end of the zoom anyway. That being the case, you're much better off with the higher quality 300 f/4 lens.

If you really need the zoom, then see if you can score up a copy of the 18-200 VR. It's a lens with much better characteristics and IMO, better optical quality than the 70-300 VR. An 18-200 VR and the 300 f/4 AF-S is a perfect kit to have.

Thom Hogan did a thorough review of that lens (Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide) and I think he gave it ok marks. I'm not that optimistic about the lens. I used one for a couple of days as a friend of mine bought one... later ended up returning it in favor of the 300 f/4 AF-S. Here's his review.... 70-300mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Julio

[LilPeteMordino]

Cheers. It was the AF-S lens I was looking at. But I didnt know there was a different one.

Did look at the 70-200mm in the past but thought the 300mm would be better. will try to have a look at both in person.

Thanks!

[cyclohexane]

I haven't used the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR; I've used the old non-AF-S renditions (70-300mm f/4-5.6 G or D), and they stunk. In good light, at maybe f/11, you're good to go, but try getting a good shutter speed at f/11 at ISO 200 when it's not bright and sunny...

It's a half-stop slower than it's previous offering as well. Low light shooting will be a no win situation.

Actually, it's only a third stop (f/4 to f/4.5). A half stop slower than f/4 is ~f/4.8. Difference is negligible in practice though. =)

Did look at the 70-200mm in the past but thought the 300mm would be better. will try to have a look at both in person.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR are very, very, very different lenses. There really isn't much overlap in their function other than the 70-200 range and the VR.

[Nikonfreak]

The 70-200 is going to be leaps and bounds better than the 70-300.

The 300 f/4 AF-S will be as well.

Ya got me on the half stop Michael... Hard to keep it straight in thirds... always throws me and I have to think of my camera and going stop by stop in thirds... LOL

Oh man, if you're willing to spend the money for the 70-200 VR, go that route... you will not be disappointed.

Julio

[LilPeteMordino]

Oh sorry. I got it wrong. Ooops. Im a stupid person. It wasnt the 70-200. Just noticed its like 1.5k

Ta for the advice guys. I feel im still a bit stupid to make full desicions yet. Gonna have to wait till after summer probably anyway.



It was the 55 - 70mm AFS VR one.

[Nikonfreak]

I'm telling you... Nikon really needs a 70-200 f/4 AF-S

They'd clean up.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

The 70-210mm f/4 AF was discontinued after a year due to poor sales... though that had a lot to do with the fact that it focused slow and was an expensive hand-assembled item.

Optically, it was pretty sweet, reusing the ptical formula from the excellent 70-210mm f/4 Series E. *cough* minimal R&D *cough*

[regandon]

When I was shooting a Nikon D2x, the new 70-300mm VR was a lens that I used all the time. It is well worth the money, and a very sharp lens even at 300mm stoped down to f/8.

[fotobram]

See my current lens line up

I consider the 70-300 VR as a keeper, definitely
Sharp, good VR performance.

Still not sure about the 18-200 VR. It is multipurpose yes, but that lens creep
VR is nice for longer focal distances to me.
Not so much for short focal distances / low light situations.
I much more prefer the f2.8 of the Tamron 17-50 over the VR of the 18-200 VR
The 200 of the 18-200 is only 200 at infinity. In practice it is more like 150.

I do have problems with the Tamron though

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by fotobram

See my current lens line up

I consider the 70-300 VR as a keeper, definitely
Sharp, good VR performance.

Still not sure about the 18-200 VR. It is multipurpose yes, but that lens creep
VR is nice for longer focal distances to me.
Not so much for short focal distances / low light situations.
I much more prefer the f2.8 of the Tamron 17-50 over the VR of the 18-200 VR
The 200 of the 18-200 is only 200 at infinity. In practice it is more like 150.

I do have problems with the Tamron though

If you go back through the threads, quite some time ago, I documented quite a bit of problems I had after a while of owning the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, not the least of which was soft focus and the seeming inability to precisely lock on, seemed like it was front focusing a bit on my Nikon D200.

I thought I could get by using it for a while rather than dropping the cash on the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S. While the optical characteristics of the Tamron were, admittedly, decent it tended to focus quite slowly and hunted a little. The optical characteristics of the Nikon are superior, focusing is much faster and lock on is excellent and precise, but they'd better be for the darn near $1,000 price difference. The Tamron's diameter was smaller than that of the Nikon but it was a fairly heavy lens for it's size.

I wish Nikon had an 18-70 f/2.8 AF-S VR lens (non DX)... I'd be in line for it. Even 20-70mm f/2.8 AF-S (VR or not)... I'd be all over it.

Optically, I'd say the 18-200 VR is a little better than the 70-300 VR.

I'd call the 70-300 VR a great value for the $479 that you can pick it up at B&H for. It is a great deal at that price and it's an inexpensive way to get to 300mm; however, don't kid yourself, a 300 f/4 AF-S is it not and it does not have the higher quality optical characteristics of that lens.

The reason I say this is because many times we opt for a less expensive solution only to later be disappointed and go after the better product that we should have held out for to begin with. (Take a look at Thom Hogan's Tripod 101 column... if you've bought tripods, you might just laugh your tail off because it's what about 75% of us did)

Likewise, I believe the 18-200 VR should be a $600 lens, not a $750 lens. At the $750 mark, you're a stone's throw away from waiting for a good rebate on the 70-200 VR, which is a much better option than the 18-200 VR and an f/2.8 lens to boot. You're also a hair away from the 300mm f/4 AF-S which is an excellent lens as well, but for less than $500 the 70-300 VR is hard to beat if you are willing to live with a few compromises, such as a slower aperature.

Julio

[fotobram]

>Optically, I'd say the 18-200 VR is a little better than the 70-300 VR.

I did not do scientific tests on this, but it is hard for me to imagen that a 11x DX zoom performs optically better then a 4+ non DX when mounted on DX. As I understood from reviews the 11x (18-200) has a much more complicted distortion behaviour that is sometimes difficult to correct in post-processing.

btw prices in NL are rather different from the $ prices

btw 2
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 has very good reviews in general.
Overexposure problems with this lens seem to occur with the early China assembled version. The Japan version does not seem to have this problem.
In spite of the 0.7 exposure compensation problem, I think this lens works for me.
I do not want to pay 3x the price for a Nikkor version

Coming back to the 70-300 VR, this is my favorite lens followed by the Tamron 17-50 and then the Sigma 10-20 mm.

The other lenses I might sell again at some point in time.
The 70-200 VR 2.8 is probably a superior lens in all aspects.
But I do not want one. Too heavy and bulky. Too many Euros

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by fotobram

>Optically, I'd say the 18-200 VR is a little better than the 70-300 VR.

I did not do scientific tests on this, but it is hard for me to imagen that a 11x DX zoom performs optically better then a 4+ non DX when mounted on DX. As I understood from reviews the 11x (18-200) has a much more complicted distortion behaviour that is sometimes difficult to correct in post-processing.

btw prices in NL are rather different from the $ prices

btw 2
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 has very good reviews in general.
Overexposure problems with this lens seem to occur with the early China assembled version. The Japan version does not seem to have this problem.
In spite of the 0.7 exposure compensation problem, I think this lens works for me.
I do not want to pay 3x the price for a Nikkor version

Coming back to the 70-300 VR, this is my favorite lens followed by the Tamron 17-50 and then the Sigma 10-20 mm.

The other lenses I might sell again at some point in time.
The 70-200 VR 2.8 is probably a superior lens in all aspects.
But I do not want one. Too heavy and bulky. Too many Euros

Agreed, I'm not pricing these in €

The Nikon's are indeed more money; however, the 17-55 f/2.8 DX and the 28-70 f/2.8 are superior to the Tamron counterparts in every aspect. For the working photographer, I believe that build quality and performance is paramount and much more important than cost. As consumer lenses the Tamron's are excellent and solid performers for those interested in getting f/2.8 and a little better performance than some of the kit lenses offer.

I would be remiss to not mention the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 here. It's an excellent performer as well in this group.

The 18-200 VR is a general walkaround type lens. I don't suggest it's the best for landscape or architecture. For most general photography use where one would want a large range zoom, it's excellent. There is some distortion. Ultra wides have some of the biggest distortion issues out there. Distortion is only one aspect of a lens' performance.

The 70-200 is, indeed, superior in all aspects, but it's definitely more expensive but it's not much bigger.. 5.6" vs. 8.5" ... If you are able and willing to spend the extra money, the resulting quality of the lens will be far superior. Again, not detracting anything from the 70-300... it's a great value and performs very well for it's price point.

Julio

[fotobram]

>>btw prices in NL are rather different from the $ prices

>No doubt that's true. I'm not pricing these things in €

You are right , apologies please.
What I wanted to say is, that the price differences between these lenses are probably different too :-(

70-300 VR ==> 500 Euro
18-200 VR ==> 750 Euro
70-200 VR 2.8 ==> 1900 Euro
No rebates. That makes a gap of 1400 Euro between the top and the bottom lens :-(

[LilPeteMordino]

Wow. I didnt really expect this much debating from such a 'simple' topic!

The 70-300mm I have found varyign between £339 - £399.

The 18-200mm was about £550 I think. And the 70-200 was £1,499

[MrB]

I own the 70-300 VR. I like it a lot. As others have mentioned, it is light-hungry. If you go th the Nature and Wildlife forum and look up my post entitled Magnolia, you will see a shot I took with the lens, hand held.

It is also kind of heavy, I think.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by LilPeteMordino

Wow. I didnt really expect this much debating from such a 'simple' topic!

The 70-300mm I have found varyign between £339 - £399.

The 18-200mm was about £550 I think. And the 70-200 was £1,499

I don't think it's that big of a debate.

There's lots of decent offerings out there for a variety of lenses from a variety of manufacturers.

I should probably have mentioned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as well. Some can be had second hand and sometimes first hand for $700 USD in some locations in the US or thereabouts.

I know that cost is a limiting factor many times, but sometimes when the price points start getting closer together, I like to try to steer someone to a better quality offerings if they are able / willing to wait a little longer and save the pennies.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4.5 (at 70mm and f/5.6 at the long end) can sometimes be a large one depending on when you are shooting. That was the point I was getting across. Plus the performance of an f/2.8 lens is generally going to be better for a wider variety of applications, including low light, than a variable aperature lens.