70-300mm VR, how do you guys feel about this lens?

[nickzou]

It's relatively cheap compared to the 70-200mm VR II. It is slower and quite heavy but it seems nice. But for you more experienced photographers, what do you guys think of this telephoto?

 

[D-B-J]

It lacks a constant 2.8 aperture. So i don't like it. Do you want a more affordable version of the 70-200? 80-200 2.8D lens. IT's a GREAT lens. Much better than the 70-300 (but lacks vr and is slightly shorter).

But i love it, and it is tack sharp.

 

[480sparky]

No complaints from me.

 

[MTVision]

the 50mm-300mm VR is a little cheaper and from what I read it was rated slightly higher than the 70-300mm


EDIT - still doesn't have a high constant aperture

 

[nickzou]

Isn't the 50-300 a DX lens? I've made it a point to not purchase any DX lenses anymore since I do have aspirations to step up to the D800 a year into its lifecycle.

 

[JohnHendry]

Hi got one, its nice to have a 300 lens rather than a 200 not as nice a lens but for the money and the 300 it works for me.

All the best

 

[Trever1t]

the 70-300 vr lens is decent but....

nothing at all like the quality you will get with the 80-200 or 70-200 series of lenses.

Having owned a 70-300 and both versions of the 70-200 I can tell you it's a night and day difference....price reflects a measure of quality to be expected.

 

[chaosrealm93]

get the 70-200 or 80-200

 

[Nikon_Josh]

The 70-300 VR is very highly rated for its price/performance ratio! To be honest it can't really be compared to a 70-200 2.8 as it lacks the constant aperture of the 70-200. It is not designed to appeal to people who want a 70-200 2.8 really as it is more a walkaround telephoto lens for day shots and not to mention its a third of the price and is incredibly slow and the build quality dosen't hold a candle to the 70-200. I have a 70-300 VR and I love it, I would prefer a 70-200 VR. But I wouldn't be able to put it in my bag and forget it was there!

I have one for when I need that extra reach, for aeroplane, nature shots or whatever it may be! If I am doing portraits, I wouldn't want to use a 70-200 anyway as I'd much rather use a prime for its lighter weight and more control over DOF. So a 70-200 VR would serve little purpose to me personally as I don't shoot sports or action shots really where you need the extra speed and DOF. But its all down to what you prefer I guess! If you need a fast lens, you need a 70-200. Simple as, because the 70-300 will fall far short.

If you don't believe me.. here is a review from a guy who knows alot more than I do.. Hogan is a harsh critic aswell and he rates this lens very highly!
70-300mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

In his own words... ' The new VR is an excellent performer'.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

You might find it lacks the sharpness of the 70-200/80-200 f2.8 too, along with some physical characteristics as well.

 

[Overread]

*moving to Nikon lenses subsection*

 

[480sparky]

*moving to Nikon lenses subsection*

Do you get paid mileage for every move?

 

[Overread]

*moving to Nikon lenses subsection*

Do you get paid mileage for every move?

sadly not, but it eases my itchy ban finger

 

[mjhoward]

Its a great lens for what it is... a budget telephoto zoom.

 

[emoxley]

Have you considered a Tamron 70-300mm VC USD lens (not the one with macro)? Several people at a Nikon forum has posted it was sharper than the Nikon lens in the 200-300mm range. It's cheaper too. I got one, and I love it. It stays on my D7000 most of the time. The AF is fast and the VC is very good! I think Tamron is running rebates right now too. Some people only want Nikon lenses, but if another is as good or better, and is cheaper, I don't have a problem with it, personally. Here's where I got mine: Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics It's for both DX and FX cameras, so won't have to replace it if you upgrade to full frame.
Good luck with whatever you get.