Is there anything wrong with the Nikon 70-300mm ( non VR and VR )?

[Buck777]

There suddenly is a number of these for sale. The non VR are going for under a $100US. Reasons given is owners are upgrading to 28-300/24-120. KR says this is a good lens, one of the better FX lens around - for the price. I can understand the flexibility of a 28-300, but why ditch a lens for $80-$100? Is it that bad or is it a bargain like KR says they are.

 

[bike4fun12]

the non VR version sales for $120 brand new on B&H. so, i wouldn't buy used on that one. why buy it used when it's only $120 new?

the VR version (I own) is a fine lens. one that I have used for quite some time. used mainly for sports and BIF. It is a great lens for the price. You can find one for $350 used. I would opt for this one.

 

[manaheim]

I have the non-VR one, and while I haven't used it in years I was quite surprised at the quality of it. It seemed a fine lens to me. Not amazing... but fine. For the low cost of the thing I'd just buy it new as previous said.

 

[JaronRH]

I really think it depends on the person and what you're shooting. The 70-300 VR is a very good lens when used with lots of light (think wildlife or outdoor sports). It's sharp, quick to focus, well built, and has very nice VR on it. Personally though, I found it didn't work for me in low-light situations and I replaced it with a 70-200 VRII (200-300 was a little soft so I don't miss the extra 100mm that much). Others go the other way and want the flexability of a 1-lens setup that does everything so they're going with the 28-300 (which, despite it's shortcomings for being a superzoom - variable aperture, distortion, etc - is a very good lens for what it does.).

As far as the 70-300 VR vs non-vr, I believe the VR has noticeably better IQ then the non-VR version.

 

[jrizal]

There suddenly is a number of these for sale. The non VR are going for under a $100US. Reasons given is owners are upgrading to 28-300/24-120. KR says this is a good lens, one of the better FX lens around - for the price. I can understand the flexibility of a 28-300, but why ditch a lens for $80-$100? Is it that bad or is it a bargain like KR says they are.

The 70-300mm non-VR is an old lens dating back to the 90's AFAIK. It was designed to be an entry-level lens and nothing more. It is the cheapest in-production Nikkor lens next to the Nikkor f1.8 AF-D 50mm. That said it is still a capable lens and does not have an in-built focus motor. In order to take great or to say the least decent pictures, you must know the limitations of this lens. Because of its price it has been sort of transitionary lens for a lot of photographers until such time they can afford a better lens such as the 70-300 VR version. I recently bought the no-VR lens brand new recently and I can still say I am happy with my purchase.

 

[SeeingEyeHuman]

been happy with the 70-300 vr I so far... no complaints other then you pretty much need direct sunlight to get its best images

 

[Trever1t]

I had a 70-300vr and although it was as described above I never used it...well rarely..it just didn't sing to me. When I upgraded to the 70-200 I was really amazed at the difference. So, depending on what you want to shoot, you might look at other alternatives, or not.