Convince me! 70-300mm

[bc_steve]

you won't get a better lens in that price range. buy a used one, and if you dont like it for some weird reason you can sell it for what you paid

 

[bc_steve]

I would second Scott's statement, but to expound on it:

For the money, it's just a great, versatile and reasonably sharp lens. I own a Sigma 150-500 for birds/wildlife now, but I wouldn't get rid of my 70-300. There are times that taking my 150-500 with me isn't that feasible--like when I'm trying to pack a small pack and take it to work with me, so I can go out and shoot at lunchtime.
I own a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, a Tokina 100 f/2.8, the 18-55 kit lens and the Sigma longer lens mentioned above. The IQ of the 70-300 holds up very well against all of those except maybe the Sigma 50mm.
I'm actually about to go out and try to get some pics of the Veteran's Day Parade (which starts right in front of the building where I work)--IF my sore chest will allow me to hold the camera for long. I'll be using that 70-300, same as I did last year, because it's just the most versatile lens I've got in my bag.

So yeah--basically, great price, nice quality, very decent IQ, not that heavy…just a great all-around lens!

Thanks for the feedback! In terms of the lenses you own... I've been wondering about getting 3rd party lenses, in comparison to Nikon's. The price is better, and you may be able to get a longer zoom for less, but some of the side-by-side comparison images I've seen have deterred me. What is your take on the matter?

I think it really depends on the lens. But overall, the BIGGEST downside that *I* know of to the bigger-name third-party brands--Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma--is that the lens quality isn't necessarily as *consistent* as with Nikon or Canon. In other words, one Sigma 150-500 might be absolutely astounding, and someone else might get one that is completely subpar. But, having said that--I've only had ONE Sigma lens that I hated. It was a 75-300, but it was an older lens that I picked up for free when I bought an old Nikon film camera, so I can hardly complain. That thing had the image quality of a Coke bottle! Man, it was terrible.
My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is sharper and quicker to focus than my Nikon 50 f/1.8g was--and until I switched, I'd had absolutely NO complaints about my Nikon lens. My Tokina 100mm macro lens is probably my favorite lens, just astounding quality. But it's the ONLY Tokina lens I've owned, so I have no idea what the rest are like.

I haven't used a Tamron at all, but if the long wildlife lens they just announced is all it seems to be, and the price is the rumored $1500, I may just try them out.
My *next* lens purchase is probably going to be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8--I've heard really great things about it, and it's WAY less than the Nikon equivalent.

Basically, I've had almost nothing but good fortune with the third-party lenses so far--but my experience with them is still pretty limited, compared to some around here.

I was wondering how the quality was on your Tokina 100mm when I read your above post. Mine is astoundingly good as well. Pretty impressed with that inexpensive piece of glass!

 

[hamlet]

Gahhhh :meh:

I know you're kidding, but that's just painful to read.

If you bought lenses like i did, then you would still be using your 18-55 like me. All my purchases have a one month vetting period. If by the end of that month i still have doubts or have found a better one, then that lens gets taken out of my waiting list. I still have to buy my first lens because i'm so meticulous. There are always new variables that come up for me.


If i were you i would think about this long and hard until you are sure it will meet everything you throw at it. Astrophotography is at night where you need a lens with a big aperture like your 50mm, so maybe a lens with this small of an aperture is not right for you? Perhaps the 50mm is already good enough and all you need is a telescope?

 

[hamlet]

Educate yourself thoroughly.

 

[bc_steve]

Here's a sample I took with mine. I ended up selling it when I got my 70-200 f/2.8 but I was quite happy with it.


Raven by Steve Dinicol, on Flickr

 

[480sparky]

Just about every lens of this class is 'soft' at the tele end. So there's nothing new under the sun here.

Yes, there are sharper lenses, but not at the same price point. I got the 70-200 VRII, but I'm keeping the 70-300 for it's size & weight when IQ isn't an issue.

Why not just use an iphone?

Maybe because I don't have one?

 

[18.percent.gary]

Oh I hate to be "that guy" I am the 1 out of ten. I have tried two copies of the 70-300 VR. Both are owned by friends of mine and frankly I thought they were just OK. I guess if you find a used one cheap enough it will work. I thought the AF was a bit flaky on my D300, and my friends D7000 and my other friends D600. Both copies I tried were soft at 300. I used to have a Tamron 70-300 VC that I sold to a friend and I personally thought that was a better lens, the AF was a touch slower but it tracked better and was sharper at 300 wide open.. Of course just my humble opinion...

Make me #2 out of ten. I replaced the Nikon with the Tamron (when it had the $150 rebate) because a friend had one that blew my socks off. The Tamron is at it's sharpest at 300mm and much sharper than the Nikon from 200-300mm.

Coastalconn left out a few other points about the Tamron 70-300 VC:

Build quality is MUCH better than the Nikon. The zoom and focus rings feel like they're on ball bearings compared to the sticky Nikon "kit lens" feel.
Tamron's VC is much better than Nikon's VR (at least on this lens).
Tamron has a 6 year warranty.

 

[NellyG]

Got mine for 212 on eBay and it has been a fantastic lens.

 

[hamlet]

Got mine for 212 on eBay and it has been a fantastic lens.

Minimum used price here is more than double that.

 

[PaulWog]

Got mine for 212 on eBay and it has been a fantastic lens.

Minimum used price here is more than double that.

... nope.

I got mine NEW for $400.

 

[hamlet]

Got mine for 212 on eBay and it has been a fantastic lens.

Minimum used price here is more than double that.

... nope.

I got mine NEW for $400.

Its like their practicality giving it away over there.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm starting to be convinced a little towards the other way! Eek!

Lawrence Burns, who I believe is a member here, made this comparison of Bower vs Canon lenses.

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1044635_382562948520577_535010075_n.jpg

And here is a photo I took, myself, of the moon using my friends Nikkor 70-300mm manual lens.


(without a tripod, so it could probably be better with one, and with VR on the newer AF-S model)

 

[DGMPhotography]

Any thoughts?

 

[astroNikon]

I take some every so often with my 75-300 AF Nikon lens. But everyone here is talking about the newer Nikon lenses.
But my 75-300 AF is one sharp, and old push-pull lens (on Tripod, not handheld)
For comparison (kinda, because it was on a tripod)

Nikon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Review


I do plan on saving up for a 300mm, but it has to be f/4
But there are some nice 150-500mm f/4+ out there too which has my eye.
Of course, I also want an $8k telescope too. But who's counting.

 

[Derrel]

Any thoughts?

Well, the comparison of the Bower 650-1000mm zoom lens versus the Canon 600mm f/4-L is...ridiculous...https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1044635_382562948520577_535010075_n.jpg

The Bower is a beginner-level, Chinese-made cheapie lens that retails for something just a little north of $100, and is an absolute CHEAPIE, whereas the Canon 600mm f/4-L is a world-class 600mm fixed focal length lens. The Nikon you borrowed is somewhere in between.

My thoughts? Just buy one already. It's probably the best lens made in its price class and speed, and it has VR, so it's easy to hand-hold at slower speeds, or to shoot panning shots with, or to shoot hand-held when you're a bit out of breath, or are shooting in windy conditions, or when shooting from a boat or whatnot. It's not like we're talking about a $2,499 70-200 f/2.8 VR-II lens here...were talking about a $300 to $345 used lens here. Or buy a refurbed one.