70-300mm Nikon lens help

[sk8ting]

So between the 70-300 ED and the 55-300 VR, which would be the best for me on a limited budget of about 250$

 

[Derrel]

So between the 70-300 ED and the 55-300 VR, which would be the best for me on a limited budget of about 250$

I would rather own the 55-300 VR. Why? Wider FL range. VR. Newer optical design. But the 55-300 VR costs more than $250, doesn't it?

 

[sk8ting]

I found it in eBay for 215$ and a kit with a case and filters, tripod, ect. For 280$

 

[sk8ting]

Used of course.

 

[greybeard]

I have the 70-300 non VR that I bought years ago for my n80. I use it now with my d5100. I usually shoot at 300mm with it and i need to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster to get consistantly sharp images which means higher ISO most of the times. If I were buying one now, I'd get a newer VR model, especially since I have to manually focus it with the D5100.

 

[coastalconn]

I always recommend Cameta.com for Nikon refurbs. It is 250 there but gives you a 1 year warranty. They also have bundles with other stuff for 280. I have the 55-300 and it is a nice lens for the price, it does focus kind of slow, but it is very light and great IQ stopped down a little. I snagged one before Christmas on sale for 245 new! I don't use it to much because I ended up getting more into wildlife than I thought I would and 300mm isn't enough.

 

[djacobox372]

Keep in mind that some of the older 70-300mm are AF lenses and require an AF motor to autofocus.

The 70-300mm AF ED is the best $$ value.

 

[Ginu]

I've had the 70-300 AF ED and its a nice lens, very well made and takes decent shots, however i came across a good deal (250$) for a barely used and in great condition 70-300 VR lens and bought it.
The 70-300 AF ED is lighter, smaller and very very slow on my D90, also if the body doesn't have a AF motor then this is a fully manual lens
The 70-300 VR is bigger, heavier and a lot faster than the AF models and quite sharp (just not exactly at the 300mm end of the lens).

If you want my opinion, save your cash and wait a bit and look for a used 70-300 VR or 55-300 although id prefer the 70-300 VR over the two.

 

[sk8ting]

I am looking to do a lot of shooting of my friends longboarding, and snowboarding. I think the 55-300 VR will be a little better, because if needed I can get a little wider shot if need be.

 

[sk8ting]

I was at a local store today and I think I found the lens I am looking for. A tamron 18-270. It has enough zoom for some snowboarding and longboarding shots. And the focal length at 18 is awesome incase someone does something cool next to me, or closer to me. Eventually I'm looking into a super telephoto, but that's a bit away.

 

[SouthwestDreams]

I have the 70-300 VR. I've been happy with the results I get and I think for the money you get a lot of lens. But what I use it for the most by far is tooling around my hunting lease and snapping shots of deer, turkey, quail and the odd coyote. These are shots of opportunity where you have only seconds and a tripod is not an option. For serious wildlife photography, unfortunately, big, fast and expensive glass is needed. If you need the range of the 300 then you're probably not able to get close and thus will probably benefit from the VR.

An outstanding lens in every way! I have both that and the 300/4 and truthfully I can not see a huge diff to my eye at the 300 range.

 

[molested_cow]

I have the AF-ED 70-300 for many years. I'd say if you can afford the AF-S version, get it. The AF one, although is lighter and more compact, is really slow. On my D700, I need to set it at F11 to get decently sharp images. That means my ISO setting has to be way high to get a decent shutter speed.

It's not going to work for action shots. Simply too slow on AF.

 

[tirediron]

It's not going to work for action shots. Simply too slow on AF.

As I'm pretty sure the Tamron 18-270 will be as well. Save a little more and keep an eye on Craig's List for an 80-200 f2.8D; these go for between $650 and 800 depending on conditition and version, and are excellent optically. They are slower focusing (not I'm as slow as the Tamron would be), but given how much faster it is optically, the ability to shoot at reasonable shutter-speeds and use large apertures such as f2.8, f4 will more than make up for it.

 

[sk8ting]

I found the AF-S model (used running for $1k+ on eBay) then there is the AF model for around 500$-900$...I don't have the motor in my camera for the AF. Which model should I invest in?