I need help with choosing a lens...

robbins.photo · Feb 20, 2014

PaulWog said:
I'm noticing some are just calling it the "70-300mm". Just making sure to clarify: Don't get the non-VR version!!!

Absolutely.. you want the Nikkor 70-300 mm AF-S VR F/4.5-5.6. Brand new they run usually $575-$600, used usually around $300 or so - and worth every single penny really. Which is hard to believe because I'm actually selling mine soon.. lol, but it does happen to be true. Mine just doesn't get much use since I got the 70-200 mm F/2.8 so now it just sits in the bag.

sifelaver · Feb 20, 2014

I would love to try out a 70-300 VR someday. I got a used 55-300 VR a while back because it was cheaper and lighter in the bag, since I don't need to shoot that long very often. I am happy with its output but the way you guys talk about the 70-300 VR is as though it's the holy grail

TheNevadanStig · Feb 20, 2014

where are you guys finding the VR for $160? They seem to be around $600 on Amazon

Josh_Houchin · Feb 20, 2014

$160 is not the VR. I got my 70-300 VR new for $389 with a rebate, but $300 seems to be the norm used or refurbished.

TheNevadanStig · Feb 20, 2014

Is the non-VR that much worse? I will never be able to afford the VR

PaulWog · Feb 20, 2014

TheNevadanStig said:
Is the non-VR that much worse? I will never be able to afford the VR

I got my 70-300 VR on sale new for $400 earlier last year during the summer. During the sales after Christmas, I saw it on sale for I think $380. And that's in Canada, where sale prices aren't usually as nice as the US.

If you look for a sale, you could get the lens for around $400. If you get it used, easily $300 or even less.

robbins.photo · Feb 20, 2014

sifelaver said:
I would love to try out a 70-300 VR someday. I got a used 55-300 VR a while back because it was cheaper and lighter in the bag, since I don't need to shoot that long very often. I am happy with its output but the way you guys talk about the 70-300 VR is as though it's the holy grail

Lol.. it's funny you should mention the 55-300 mm VR is lighter than the 70. The reason my 70-300 mm doesn't get used anymore it's pretty much been replaced by a 70-200 mm F/2.8 which weighs a ton compared to the 300 mm, so really that one got me chuckling. I guess it's all relative, just what your used to that matters.

Pound for pound the 70-300 mm VR is almost impossible to beat in it's price range. The IQ is fantastic, it's internal focus so you can use variable filters without having to monkey around with them after you get them set, it focuses fast and just takes great pictures.

Braineack · Feb 21, 2014

TheNevadanStig said:
Is the non-VR that much worse? I will never be able to afford the VR

I started with the hella cheap 55-200 VR. I sold it to buy a refurb'd 55-300 VR. I sold that to buy the 70-300 VR.

Welcome to one of the more exspenive hobbies there is behind motorsports.

While the 70-300 is by far the best lens--its strength in its focusing speed. Otherwise, the image quality isn't any better than that of the 55-300, to be honest (where the 70-300 is sharper in the center through the range). The 55-300 is also cheaper, smaller, lighter, and can focus a lot closer, but its focusing speed probably being its worst trait, so it's not for tracking fast moving object. However I never had any issue shooting motorsports with it.

I will also stray from the pack and say it's optically not THAT great, at least when compared to better lenses, but it's a great lens for the $300, used, price tag.

I wouldn't, personally, buy a telephoto without VR.