70-300 VR Upgrade

[nerwin]

As much as I love my 70-300 VR, it's only 300mm and I want more telephoto!

But I'm not 100 percent sure what would be a reasonable upgrade for this lens. The new Nikon 200-500 5.6 is very appealing, but its around $1300, if I can find a used one maybe less, it's a little out of my budget. Also, its 200-500mm, so I'll be totally losing out on the wide end if I need it.

The older 80-400 4.5-5.6D VR is another option, it's only 100 extra millimeters, but it is far more affordable around 500-600 bucks used in great condition and from what I hear, its a good all around lens.

For a little more money, the Tamron 150-600 can be had used for around $700. But I'm skeptical about these Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses because there is so many of them for sale on eBay. But I'm still missing out on the wide end and I don't have a lens to cover that range.

If I was to get a new telephoto, I'd sell the 70-300 VR and put that toward it. The 80-400 seems like the best option right now. But is that 100 more millimeters worth the hassle? I'm not too sure.

 

[table1349]

Depends what do you want to shoot. Birdies and squirrels no, grizzlies and cougars yes.

 

[robbins.photo]

As much as I love my 70-300 VR, it's only 300mm and I want more telephoto!

But I'm not 100 percent sure what would be a reasonable upgrade for this lens. The new Nikon 200-500 5.6 is very appealing, but its around $1300, if I can find a used one maybe less, it's a little out of my budget. Also, its 200-500mm, so I'll be totally losing out on the wide end if I need it.

The older 80-400 4.5-5.6D VR is another option, it's only 100 extra millimeters, but it is far more affordable around 500-600 bucks used in great condition and from what I hear, its a good all around lens.

For a little more money, the Tamron 150-600 can be had used for around $700. But I'm skeptical about these Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses because there is so many of them for sale on eBay. But I'm still missing out on the wide end and I don't have a lens to cover that range.

If I was to get a new telephoto, I'd sell the 70-300 VR and put that toward it. The 80-400 seems like the best option right now. But is that 100 more millimeters worth the hassle? I'm not too sure.

The 80-400mm VR, the older version without the AF-S motor is supposed to be a great lens optically, but from what I understand it's slow to focus - slow enough that it's not recommended for sports or fast moving targets. Unfortunately the newer version with the AF-S motor is ridiculously expensive, it's actually more than the 200-500mm Nikkor.

A lot of folks are selling there Tamron 150-600mm's at the moment on Ebay because of the release of the new G2 version I'm sure. I haven't shot it or the sigma but from some of the sample shots I've seen it looks like they are capable of producing some pretty good quality images when used properly.

A couple of other options to consider, 300mm F4. The non-AFS version is usually around $300-$400, the AF-S version usually around $600-$700. Image quality is first rate, and combined with a 1.4x TC your looking at 420mm at 5.6. Keep in mind if you go with the non-AFS version you'll need a TC that will allow the AF to work with the screw drive, the Kenko teleplus pro 300 should do the job.

Sigma 100-300mm F4 - these are normally in the $450-$500 range, Image quality is very good, and again with a 1.4x TC you'll be looking at 140-420mm at 5.6. You won't get quite the image quality from it that you would from a 200-500 of course, but from what I understand it's still very good with the TC.

 

[astroNikon]

I had the 300/4 AF lens as mentioned above.
It was designed with manual focus in mind. So fast moving object you have to keep the focus at or close to the focus point. ie, otherwise it takes some time to bring into focus. At slower shutter speeds on moving object I had fringing. Faster shutter speeds resolved this. I wouldn't use a TC on it other than Manual Focus stuff (which is what I did).

I searched high and low and got a Bigma 150-500. But I soon replaced that with a Tamron 150-600. I've found the Tamron good for sports and fast moving objects. But I always shoot it at f/8 for the sharpest images. Used on d600/d750/d7000 with no issues.

It all depends upon
1 - your budget
2 - what you want to use it for
3 - speed of focusing
1 - your budget, aka # 1

As Robbins has mentioned about the 80-400. I've found those are slow. great focal range and I really wanted the 80 for close up sports and far sports all in one lens, but it was slow for action. The other ones were priced about my budget too.

 

[nerwin]

As much as I love my 70-300 VR, it's only 300mm and I want more telephoto!

But I'm not 100 percent sure what would be a reasonable upgrade for this lens. The new Nikon 200-500 5.6 is very appealing, but its around $1300, if I can find a used one maybe less, it's a little out of my budget. Also, its 200-500mm, so I'll be totally losing out on the wide end if I need it.

The older 80-400 4.5-5.6D VR is another option, it's only 100 extra millimeters, but it is far more affordable around 500-600 bucks used in great condition and from what I hear, its a good all around lens.

For a little more money, the Tamron 150-600 can be had used for around $700. But I'm skeptical about these Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses because there is so many of them for sale on eBay. But I'm still missing out on the wide end and I don't have a lens to cover that range.

If I was to get a new telephoto, I'd sell the 70-300 VR and put that toward it. The 80-400 seems like the best option right now. But is that 100 more millimeters worth the hassle? I'm not too sure.

The 80-400mm VR, the older version without the AF-S motor is supposed to be a great lens optically, but from what I understand it's slow to focus - slow enough that it's not recommended for sports or fast moving targets. Unfortunately the newer version with the AF-S motor is ridiculously expensive, it's actually more than the 200-500mm Nikkor.

A lot of folks are selling there Tamron 150-600mm's at the moment on Ebay because of the release of the new G2 version I'm sure. I haven't shot it or the sigma but from some of the sample shots I've seen it looks like they are capable of producing some pretty good quality images when used properly.

A couple of other options to consider, 300mm F4. The non-AFS version is usually around $300-$400, the AF-S version usually around $600-$700. Image quality is first rate, and combined with a 1.4x TC your looking at 420mm at 5.6. Keep in mind if you go with the non-AFS version you'll need a TC that will allow the AF to work with the screw drive, the Kenko teleplus pro 300 should do the job.

Sigma 100-300mm F4 - these are normally in the $450-$500 range, Image quality is very good, and again with a 1.4x TC you'll be looking at 140-420mm at 5.6. You won't get quite the image quality from it that you would from a 200-500 of course, but from what I understand it's still very good with the TC.

Hmm. Some good options. Not sure if I exactly want a prime telephoto or not.

The main thing that bums me out about the 80-400D is the close focus distance is 7 feet, but that extra 100mm makes up for the 2 feet I'm sure. If I was doing a lot of wildlife, I'd probably buy the 200-500 5.6. But I often find the 300mm just too short sometimes and having that extra 100mm might be really nice. Everyone says its sharper than the 70-300 BUT Dxomark says otherwise. Either way, shooting in crop mode at 400mm will give me 600mm equivalent, better than 450mm lol.

 

[nerwin]

I had the 300/4 AF lens as mentioned above.
It was designed with manual focus in mind. So fast moving object you have to keep the focus at or close to the focus point. ie, otherwise it takes some time to bring into focus. At slower shutter speeds on moving object I had fringing. Faster shutter speeds resolved this. I wouldn't use a TC on it other than Manual Focus stuff (which is what I did).

I searched high and low and got a Bigma 150-500. But I soon replaced that with a Tamron 150-600. I've found the Tamron good for sports and fast moving objects. But I always shoot it at f/8 for the sharpest images. Used on d600/d750/d7000 with no issues.

It all depends upon
1 - your budget
2 - what you want to use it for
3 - speed of focusing
1 - your budget, aka # 1

As Robbins has mentioned about the 80-400. I've found those are slow. great focal range and I really wanted the 80 for close up sports and far sports all in one lens, but it was slow for action. The other ones were priced about my budget too.

I see a lot of inconsistency about the 80-400D's focus speed. I even watched some videos and some were slow and some were fast. The 70-300 VR focused extremely slow on my D7000, but fast on my D610.

Budget wise, well I'm considering the 80-400D which is around $600 used. I really just can't afford to dump a couple grand into a telelphoto lens that I wont use everyday. I can't justify that purchase right now. Selling the 70-300 VR will give me around $250-300 to put down on a used 80-400D. So I mean only paying $300ish for a used 80-400 isn't bad I think.

Well its a telephoto lens, so probably little bit of wildlife and distanced subjects, mountains maybe and well of course the moon! Just wanted a little bit more reach than what I have now. But looks like I'm going to have to stick with the 70-300 VR now

 

[robbins.photo]

As much as I love my 70-300 VR, it's only 300mm and I want more telephoto!

But I'm not 100 percent sure what would be a reasonable upgrade for this lens. The new Nikon 200-500 5.6 is very appealing, but its around $1300, if I can find a used one maybe less, it's a little out of my budget. Also, its 200-500mm, so I'll be totally losing out on the wide end if I need it.

The older 80-400 4.5-5.6D VR is another option, it's only 100 extra millimeters, but it is far more affordable around 500-600 bucks used in great condition and from what I hear, its a good all around lens.

For a little more money, the Tamron 150-600 can be had used for around $700. But I'm skeptical about these Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses because there is so many of them for sale on eBay. But I'm still missing out on the wide end and I don't have a lens to cover that range.

If I was to get a new telephoto, I'd sell the 70-300 VR and put that toward it. The 80-400 seems like the best option right now. But is that 100 more millimeters worth the hassle? I'm not too sure.

The 80-400mm VR, the older version without the AF-S motor is supposed to be a great lens optically, but from what I understand it's slow to focus - slow enough that it's not recommended for sports or fast moving targets. Unfortunately the newer version with the AF-S motor is ridiculously expensive, it's actually more than the 200-500mm Nikkor.

A lot of folks are selling there Tamron 150-600mm's at the moment on Ebay because of the release of the new G2 version I'm sure. I haven't shot it or the sigma but from some of the sample shots I've seen it looks like they are capable of producing some pretty good quality images when used properly.

A couple of other options to consider, 300mm F4. The non-AFS version is usually around $300-$400, the AF-S version usually around $600-$700. Image quality is first rate, and combined with a 1.4x TC your looking at 420mm at 5.6. Keep in mind if you go with the non-AFS version you'll need a TC that will allow the AF to work with the screw drive, the Kenko teleplus pro 300 should do the job.

Sigma 100-300mm F4 - these are normally in the $450-$500 range, Image quality is very good, and again with a 1.4x TC you'll be looking at 140-420mm at 5.6. You won't get quite the image quality from it that you would from a 200-500 of course, but from what I understand it's still very good with the TC.

Hmm. Some good options. Not sure if I exactly want a prime telephoto or not.

The main thing that bums me out about the 80-400D is the close focus distance is 7 feet, but that extra 100mm makes up for the 2 feet I'm sure. If I was doing a lot of wildlife, I'd probably buy the 200-500 5.6. But I often find the 300mm just too short sometimes and having that extra 100mm might be really nice. Everyone says its sharper than the 70-300 BUT Dxomark says otherwise. Either way, shooting in crop mode at 400mm will give me 600mm equivalent, better than 450mm lol.

I don't really shoot in crop mode myself, don't see any advantage to it since I can just downsize the photo in photoshop and get the exact same results.

When I need a bit more reach I will sometimes add a Nikon TC-20 III to my 70-200mm 2.8. There is a bit of IQ loss but it's not huge and I can usually compensate for it well enough in post that the end results are more than acceptable.

Eventually I'd like to get something that will give me a bit more reach but for now that's on the back burner until after I figure out a way to pay for the eye surgery I need.

 

[nerwin]

As much as I love my 70-300 VR, it's only 300mm and I want more telephoto!

But I'm not 100 percent sure what would be a reasonable upgrade for this lens. The new Nikon 200-500 5.6 is very appealing, but its around $1300, if I can find a used one maybe less, it's a little out of my budget. Also, its 200-500mm, so I'll be totally losing out on the wide end if I need it.

The older 80-400 4.5-5.6D VR is another option, it's only 100 extra millimeters, but it is far more affordable around 500-600 bucks used in great condition and from what I hear, its a good all around lens.

For a little more money, the Tamron 150-600 can be had used for around $700. But I'm skeptical about these Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses because there is so many of them for sale on eBay. But I'm still missing out on the wide end and I don't have a lens to cover that range.

If I was to get a new telephoto, I'd sell the 70-300 VR and put that toward it. The 80-400 seems like the best option right now. But is that 100 more millimeters worth the hassle? I'm not too sure.

The 80-400mm VR, the older version without the AF-S motor is supposed to be a great lens optically, but from what I understand it's slow to focus - slow enough that it's not recommended for sports or fast moving targets. Unfortunately the newer version with the AF-S motor is ridiculously expensive, it's actually more than the 200-500mm Nikkor.

A lot of folks are selling there Tamron 150-600mm's at the moment on Ebay because of the release of the new G2 version I'm sure. I haven't shot it or the sigma but from some of the sample shots I've seen it looks like they are capable of producing some pretty good quality images when used properly.

A couple of other options to consider, 300mm F4. The non-AFS version is usually around $300-$400, the AF-S version usually around $600-$700. Image quality is first rate, and combined with a 1.4x TC your looking at 420mm at 5.6. Keep in mind if you go with the non-AFS version you'll need a TC that will allow the AF to work with the screw drive, the Kenko teleplus pro 300 should do the job.

Sigma 100-300mm F4 - these are normally in the $450-$500 range, Image quality is very good, and again with a 1.4x TC you'll be looking at 140-420mm at 5.6. You won't get quite the image quality from it that you would from a 200-500 of course, but from what I understand it's still very good with the TC.

Hmm. Some good options. Not sure if I exactly want a prime telephoto or not.

The main thing that bums me out about the 80-400D is the close focus distance is 7 feet, but that extra 100mm makes up for the 2 feet I'm sure. If I was doing a lot of wildlife, I'd probably buy the 200-500 5.6. But I often find the 300mm just too short sometimes and having that extra 100mm might be really nice. Everyone says its sharper than the 70-300 BUT Dxomark says otherwise. Either way, shooting in crop mode at 400mm will give me 600mm equivalent, better than 450mm lol.

I don't really shoot in crop mode myself, don't see any advantage to it since I can just downsize the photo in photoshop and get the exact same results.

When I need a bit more reach I will sometimes add a Nikon TC-20 III to my 70-200mm 2.8. There is a bit of IQ loss but it's not huge and I can usually compensate for it well enough in post that the end results are more than acceptable.

Eventually I'd like to get something that will give me a bit more reach but for now that's on the back burner until after I figure out a way to pay for the eye surgery I need.

Yeah I know the crop mode don't mean crap on full frame or crop bodies but what I'm trying to say, I can crop further at 400mm than I could at 300mm AND most likely, cropping less and giving me higher resolution photos because I have that extra reach.

 

[nerwin]

Heh. The older 80-400D focusing about the same, if not faster than my 70-300 VR. I wouldn't complain at all, I'm already use to that speed.

 

[gckless]

The problem with the 70-300 VR isn't the focusing speed, because it's not too terrible, but it's erratic focusing. I didn't notice it much until it was pointed out to me, but when anything is presented in front of the subject (even a bird flying that it tracked on) it would hunt a ton going back to find the original subject. For me though, the 70-300 VR worked fine tracking cars on track. And it was pretty sharp too, the best of the low priced telephoto zooms IMO.

I've moved on to the 200-500 and 70-200 VRII. Love the 200-500, really love that it's sharpest wide open, though quality does fall off a tiny bit above 400mm. That and the zoom ring range are the only two things I don't like about the lens. Ok, and no weather sealing, but I can live with that I guess. Think you could find one on sale during black friday? It's worth it. On the other hand, you might also be able to find a sale on the Sigma 150-600 Sports for the same price as the 200-500, which is a better lens.

That's if you can find a bigger budget of course. Just do it, you need it and your life will be much better with it. Or that's what I told myself lol.

If not, just keep the 70-300 for now IMO.

 

[nerwin]

The problem with the 70-300 VR isn't the focusing speed, because it's not too terrible, but it's erratic focusing. I didn't notice it much until it was pointed out to me, but when anything is presented in front of the subject (even a bird flying that it tracked on) it would hunt a ton going back to find the original subject. For me though, the 70-300 VR worked fine tracking cars on track. And it was pretty sharp too, the best of the low priced telephoto zooms IMO.

I've moved on to the 200-500 and 70-200 VRII. Love the 200-500, really love that it's sharpest wide open, though quality does fall off a tiny bit above 400mm. That and the zoom ring range are the only two things I don't like about the lens. Ok, and no weather sealing, but I can live with that I guess. Think you could find one on sale during black friday? It's worth it. On the other hand, you might also be able to find a sale on the Sigma 150-600 Sports for the same price as the 200-500, which is a better lens.

That's if you can find a bigger budget of course. Just do it, you need it and your life will be much better with it. Or that's what I told myself lol.

If not, just keep the 70-300 for now IMO.

Yeah..I'd love the 200-500 but unfortunately right now it's no longer in my budget. Maybe someday. I don't do much wildlife shooting in the winter anyways.

 

[astroNikon]

The problem with the 70-300 VR isn't the focusing speed, because it's not too terrible, but it's erratic focusing. I didn't notice it much until it was pointed out to me, but when anything is presented in front of the subject (even a bird flying that it tracked on) it would hunt a ton going back to find the original subject. For me though, the 70-300 VR worked fine tracking cars on track. And it was pretty sharp too, the best of the low priced telephoto zooms IMO.

I've moved on to the 200-500 and 70-200 VRII. Love the 200-500, really love that it's sharpest wide open, though quality does fall off a tiny bit above 400mm. That and the zoom ring range are the only two things I don't like about the lens. Ok, and no weather sealing, but I can live with that I guess. Think you could find one on sale during black friday? It's worth it. On the other hand, you might also be able to find a sale on the Sigma 150-600 Sports for the same price as the 200-500, which is a better lens.

That's if you can find a bigger budget of course. Just do it, you need it and your life will be much better with it. Or that's what I told myself lol.

If not, just keep the 70-300 for now IMO.

Same here with the 70-300. The lens causes contrast detection issues and throws the AF system a little haywire. I'm guessing, since even when I tested it with AF-S-Single, that the lens is creating back/front focusing issues on the fly with moving subjects. Which of course creates some major focusing issues especially when using large apertures like f/2.8 and larger. For what I was using it for, sports, it just didn't work. For a general lens with subjects not erratic, it was fine.

 

[Dave442]

I like the 70-300mm VR just for the size and gives decent results. I use it on a crop sensor so I can get some bird shots. I use it with BBF and just let up on the focus button if I am going to go off the subject with the selected focus point.

When I bought this lens it was at a local camera shop and I also had the old 80-400mm out and spent a couple hours there trying both lenses on my camera. The 70-300mm was the better option. Today I would add a 150-600mm (or similar) as another lens, not to replace the 70-300mm. Used 70-300 VR's are cheap, so I don't see much point in trying to sell it as the proceeds would not go far in funding a bigger lens.

 

[nerwin]

I like the 70-300mm VR just for the size and gives decent results. I use it on a crop sensor so I can get some bird shots. I use it with BBF and just let up on the focus button if I am going to go off the subject with the selected focus point.

When I bought this lens it was at a local camera shop and I also had the old 80-400mm out and spent a couple hours there trying both lenses on my camera. The 70-300mm was the better option. Today I would add a 150-600mm (or similar) as another lens, not to replace the 70-300mm. Used 70-300 VR's are cheap, so I don't see much point in trying to sell it as the proceeds would not go far in funding a bigger lens.

Yeah, you might be right. Honestly, I'd be better off buying a 70-200 2.8 and a teleconverter.

 

[Dave442]

Not sure why you don't already have a 70-200. Your should be making some money with your photography and this would fill out what you have in your bag over any other lens.