Nikon 70-300 VR lens

On 2012-05-23 05:34:38 -0700, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-23 00:42:03 -0700, Rob said:
On 23/05/2012 10:35 AM, Rich wrote:
wrote in news:220520122032185186%
lid:

In ,
wrote:

Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

it's a very good lens and well worth the money.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical
type
and not the SW focus.

that's an old lens and not that good. it doesn't have afs focusing and
its vr is first generation and not as good as the 70-300.

How's the one that replaced the 70-300, the 55-300mm? Better or worse?


I think that lens is a DX. I am after a D800 as well so this is not an option.

r

Nope!
It is not a DX.
In my hand I have an AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR.


The question was about the 55-300mm, which *is* a DX lens.

OK! I got that.
Speed reading is a bitch!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/22/2012 7:38 PM, Rob wrote:
Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
and not the SW focus.

Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??

Need a fast AF and VR

thanks.


I have the 80-400. Except for the slow focus it is fine. It is sharp
with decent contrast. For wildlife, I use the 70-200 with a 1.7
extender. I find it fast and sharp. What's your budget. For greater bird
reach I am thinking of getting the 2.0 APO extender.

--
Peter

On 5/23/2012 4:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

It is a consumer grade lens. It is cheap, and for
example has no tripod mount. It's a good buy for the price.
It is sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, but frankly if that is
indeed the range you want even the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is
better, and the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is far better, even with
a 1.4x teleconverter (plus it works with a 2x TC too).

If you need a sharp lens from 200mm to 300mm, this is not it.

The only real advantage of this lens is the price tag.

See http://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htm for a reliable review.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
and not the SW focus.

Despite everything else, keep in mind that it is a
professional grade lens. It is quite sharp from 80 to
300mm. It cost less than a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII plus a
2x TC, but doesn't AF nearly as fast.


I find a lot of image degradation when using the 1.4 extender. I can't
say about the TC2. Nikon says it won't work.


--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 5/23/2012 4:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

It is a consumer grade lens. It is cheap, and for
example has no tripod mount. It's a good buy for the price.
It is sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, but frankly if that is
indeed the range you want even the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is
better, and the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is far better, even with
a 1.4x teleconverter (plus it works with a 2x TC too).

If you need a sharp lens from 200mm to 300mm, this is not it.

The only real advantage of this lens is the price tag.

See http://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htm for a reliable review.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
and not the SW focus.

Despite everything else, keep in mind that it is a
professional grade lens. It is quite sharp from 80 to
300mm. It cost less than a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII plus a
2x TC, but doesn't AF nearly as fast.


I find a lot of image degradation when using the 1.4 extender. I can't
say about the TC2. Nikon says it won't work.

I assume the above is in reference to the 80-400mm lens,
and not to the text you've quoted which is all about the
70-200mm instead.

You clipped my actual discussion of the 80-400mm with TC's:

"The 80-400mm can be used with a 1.4x TC at least on a
D3S, and even with a 2X TC on a D4 or D800. Neither
makes for a particularly fantastic lens, ..."

It is true that Nikon *cannot* recommend using any TC,
to include the 1.4x,, simply because until the recent
introduction of the D4 and D800 there was no camera
specified to AF a lens with a maximum aperture smaller
than f/5.6 (which of course the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6
necessarily is with any TC).

But as I noted, it does in fact work as stated (and
clearly I am suggesting that with other than the Nikon
pro bodies it almost certainly will *not* AF). And as
stated, "Neither makes for a particularly fantastic
lens".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Bruce wrote:
The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.

Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
the 70-300VR.

FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
latter, I've almost never used the former.

The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 was an excellent performer but was too expensive,
so was replaced,

I also have one of these, but it got snapped in two (!) when it fell off
the roof of my car when still attached to the camera. Ouch.

The VR lens is optically nowhere near as good as the 75-300mm f/4-5.6
whose optical design was developed from the older 50-300mm AIS Nikkor

I'd have to agree here. I don't know how to characterize it, but the
75-300's images simply look better, especially at the longer end.

Plus the 75-300 was built like a tank, except for the plastic bit that
attached the metal optics barrel to the lens mount.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Stuffed Crust wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The 70-300mm G VR is OK but it is not a great lens. My advice would
be - if possible - to wait for the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR which has
been promised for months and must surely be due soon. The latest
rumour is that it will be announced along with the D600.

Alternatively, consider picking up an older 80-200 f/2.8 lens; they're
far cheaper than the newer 70-200 lenses, and optically far superior to
the 70-300VR.

FWIW I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-200/2.8, and since I got the
latter, I've almost never used the former.

Generally speaking I don't disagree about the 80-200mm
f/2.8 AF-D...

Except in this case the OP explicitly specified the
need for VR and fast AF. I thought it was going a bit
out on a limb to talk about the 80-400mm, but the
80-200mm borders on off topic!

Assuming of course that fast AF and VR actually are
needed.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 5/23/2012 11:04 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
On 5/23/2012 4:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

It is a consumer grade lens. It is cheap, and for
example has no tripod mount. It's a good buy for the price.
It is sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, but frankly if that is
indeed the range you want even the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is
better, and the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is far better, even with
a 1.4x teleconverter (plus it works with a 2x TC too).

If you need a sharp lens from 200mm to 300mm, this is not it.

The only real advantage of this lens is the price tag.

See http://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htm for a reliable review.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
and not the SW focus.

Despite everything else, keep in mind that it is a
professional grade lens. It is quite sharp from 80 to
300mm. It cost less than a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII plus a
2x TC, but doesn't AF nearly as fast.


I find a lot of image degradation when using the 1.4 extender. I can't
say about the TC2. Nikon says it won't work.

I assume the above is in reference to the 80-400mm lens,
and not to the text you've quoted which is all about the
70-200mm instead.

You clipped my actual discussion of the 80-400mm with TC's:

"The 80-400mm can be used with a 1.4x TC at least on a
D3S, and even with a 2X TC on a D4 or D800. Neither
makes for a particularly fantastic lens, ..."

It is true that Nikon *cannot* recommend using any TC,
to include the 1.4x,, simply because until the recent
introduction of the D4 and D800 there was no camera
specified to AF a lens with a maximum aperture smaller
than f/5.6 (which of course the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6
necessarily is with any TC).

But as I noted, it does in fact work as stated (and
clearly I am suggesting that with other than the Nikon
pro bodies it almost certainly will *not* AF). And as
stated, "Neither makes for a particularly fantastic
lens".


Yes, is was referring to the 60-400.
I have found mine to be an excellent lens, when I didn't need autofocus.

I also notice significant image degradation with my 1.4 extender. YMMV



--
Peter

On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:38:36 +1000, Rob wrote:

Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical type
and not the SW focus.

Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??

I have the older 50-500 non VR Sigma lens, and I've taken some good pic's with
it, but I should have bought the 150-500... once you see how big this lens
really is you will only want to mount it when you want long range! I'd bet the
150-500 is better quality than the 50-500.

I have an old 70-300 non VR Nikon, and I'm fairly happy with it so I imagine the
new 70-300 will be better,

For wide range I use the new Nikon 28-300 but it's quite distorted... you will
need lens correction in ACR! It also suffers from short range focus diminished
mm's. unlike the other lenses I mentioned, but it's an OK snapshot lens.

Rob writes:

Any thoughts on the Nikon 70-300 VR IF ED lens.

I've only heard second-hand reports, but a number of them are
surprisingly favorable for what is essentially a consumer lens.

Most reviews gloss over the lens but no real user reports.

Wanting to buy it as a replacement lens but unsure if its any good.

My other option is the Nikon 80-400 but the AF is slow mechanical
type and not the SW focus.

Is there any other recommendations within this range or is the Sigma
50-500 f4.5-6.3 worth looking at??

Need a fast AF and VR

I'm working with the Sigma 120-400/4.5-5.6. At the time I bought it, a
few years back now, it was widely rated better than the Nikon 80-400,
and it was just over half the price. I've used it for roller derby
under available light, and am pretty darned happy with the focus (on a
Nikon D700).

Don't know what you're replacing or what body (or body type; DX vs. FX)
you'll be using it on, so I'm just answering your direct questions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

nospam writes:

depending on your budget, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be a consideration. it's
a *lot* more money but it's a much better lens too.

He did ask about "similar budget" or some such, so probably not. But,
yeah, if that's at all an option -- the 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4x and 2x
convertors is going to be better in nearly all situations than any of
the other options being discussed. Stretching for the 70-200 and doing
without the -300 part of the range for a while until you can afford to
add the TCs might be a good choice, too. I'd find the 4.5-5.6 maximum
apertures very limiting a lot of the time (depends what you shoot of
course).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info