anyone using the nikon 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR

[verdesardog]

is anyone using this lens? comments? nikkor 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR

I would like larger glass but for the price maybe this will be ok?

[Douglas]

Heres Ken Rockwell's take

Nikon 70-300mm VR

Basically says not worth it. If your gonna plop down that kinda cash, get a 70-200 2.8 for $900 or get the 18-200 VR lens.

If the glass is similar to the regular 70-300, see a post a few threads down about that lens.

[Pesky]

Originally Posted by verdesardog

is anyone using this lens? comments? nikkor 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR

I would like larger glass but for the price maybe this will be ok?

I had a non VR version of this lens. It is soft at 300mm as you would expect for the price, but I had a lot of fun with it. I don't know what you will be shooting with it, but I used it for a lot of sports.

I took this with it

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1188/...3bb6852332.jpg


I recently sold it and got the 80-200 2.8. A little less reach but a lot more light and significantly sharper.

[cyclohexane]

A better take: 70-300mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

[RvA944]

ya might take a look at this post...

70-300 VR

Best,

Roger

[badpickev]

i have 2 70-300 lenses. the vr is used more than my old trusty sigma. i just have to keep it away from my daughter.

[verdesardog]

Thanks all for your replies and photos. I've read all the reviews, I think for the priceit's an ok buy. I'll use it for nature and with extension rings for macro.


Shot with nikkor 28-70 2.8 afs and ext ring on a Nikon D40

080622_0552 _cr.jpg

[criscross79]

I love my 70-300 VR and the picture quality is very nice. here are some examples

Chris

[verdesardog]

Just got laid of work friday...bummer no new lens for me for a while

[carylwithay]

I have a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 but it is not VR. I got it from nikonmall.com for under $100 with a Nikon guarantee. It is not as sharp at my 70-200 but it is well worth the price. Keep an eye on nikonmall.com. Sometimes they have the 70-200 for $1200. Nikon reconditions them and then guarantees them.
Caryl

[physicsguy]

Just to add a bit to what has been said above. I do own the VR model. I originally looked hard at it because I had a 200mm lens for the D50 and frequently wished I had something longer. While it costs more than the non-VR model, apparently the optics are also improved because it is reputed to be pretty sharp. I don't use it a whole lot but when I have had the need it has been a really fine lens. It is the only VR lens I own and I am really happy this particular lens is VR, if find it very useful. I also think it focuses very quickly and accurately on my D200. If the Thom Hogan review had not been referenced already, I would have recommended it. Anyway, I have felt that it was worth the expense. Since you won't be buying it for a while, you can watch for it used. The only reason I would give mine up would be to get something faster and I really haven't found that needed up to this point.