Trying to Decide on 70-300 to fit Nikon

[supraman215]

I have a D90. I'm trying to decide between these 2 lenses.

Tamron | 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Autofocus | AF017NII-700

NIKON 70-300 4/5.6 AF-G BLACK G. - 1928G - Buy.com

I like the macro functionality in the Tamron lens but one of the reasons I picked a Nikon was the optics. So I thought I would try to get the opinion of some pros.

Jeff

 

[MAV90]

Hey, Jeff sorry to kind of butt into your thread, but I've also had a question about the 70-300 selection. It was a question between the two 70-300 Nikkors, so if anyone after answering Jeff's questions could answer mine that'd be great.

REAL Difference between the 70-300 4/5.6 and 4.5/5.6. I know one is pretty significantly more expensive than the other, and that it is an AF-s and a VR but are those the the only real differences?

Jeff, If you feel this post intrudes let me know and I'll remove it.

 

[KmH]

The Nikon non-VR 70-300 is not very good. That's why it's so much cheaper.

Nikon redesigned that pig and hit a home run with the AF-S 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VRII. It's one of Nikon's best lens values.

Nikon | AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED | 2161

 

[supraman215]

I saw that lens on craigslist barely used for $400 I should have jumped on it.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, unless you go for the VR version, all the options are pretty poor lenses, although they are a cheap way to get a telephoto lens.

 

[benlonghair]

Ya the 70-300VR is the place to be. It takes some pretty decent shots.

Honey Bee
Praying Mantis
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron

The only thing I really don't like about it is that it's only 1:4 reproduction ratio, so it only sort-of doubles as a long macro lens.

 

[supraman215]

I think I'll wait till I have the money for the VR version. I think I'm gonna pick up a sb-600 instead.

 

[ghache]

the vr version have 9 rounded blade that will produce a nice bokeh.
i never had a look at that lens but since i am in need for a telephoto lens and dont have the money right now for the 70-200, i will look into trying one of these.

 

[benlonghair]

I would disagree about the bokeh. My opinion is it can be pretty ugly.

Here's an example. The exif got stripped at some point, but I want to say that it was shot at f/6.3.

 

[myfotoguy]

I just saw one for sale on this forum: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/203809-nikon-70-300-vr-2161-a.html

 

[ghache]

I would disagree about the bokeh. My opinion is it can be pretty ugly.

Here's an example. The exif got stripped at some point, but I want to say that it was shot at f/6.3.

oh god you are right, i always though that more rounded diaphrams blades a lens had, smoother the bokeh was, i just did some reading on it and its false.

my bad !

 

[benlonghair]

Don't get me wrong, you can get good bokeh with that lens. Look at the Great Blue heron and the honey bee I posted. Those have good bokeh. The skydiver was about equidistant from me and from the background. I think that's why it came out so weird.

That being said, if you don't pay attention, you can get some really awful bokeh.

 

[mommy22]

I'm no pro by any means but I am selling my 70-300mm Nikkor because I never use it and also the pics aren't "great". Of course it could be me taking the not so great pics too...

 

[MSnowy]

I'm new to this, but I've gotten some decent results with my nikon 70-300 f4,5-5.6 ED IF AF-S VR , these might help a little

http://1-800pics.com/images/lax_1_web.jpg
http://1-800pics.com/images/boats_02.jpg

http://1-800pics.com/images/rockland_pitch.jpg

 

[lvcrtrs]

I would disagree about the bokeh. My opinion is it can be pretty ugly.

Here's an example. The exif got stripped at some point, but I want to say that it was shot at f/6.3.

oh god you are right, i always though that more rounded diaphrams blades a lens had, smoother the bokeh was, i just did some reading on it and its false.

my bad !

I've had the same effect happen and it is butt ugly. It really only seems to happen when there us brush like matter in the back ground though.