Lenses are stupid... help!

[Vicelord John]

I have a simple question but I don't have the ability to answer it myself...

Is this lens:

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

Better than this lens:

Sigma 70-300 f4 DG NON APO

I was thinking about switching it out for Nikkor glass but I don't want to spend that kind of cash if it isn't worth it to do so. I'm actually reasonably happy with the Sigma.


Thank you!

 

[PatrickHMS]

Since you have a D90, why not try the Nikkor AF 70-300mm non VR lens? You can easily find them used for less than $100.00. Then spend the rest of your bux on something else you want.

Even without the VR, that 70-300mm is a very nice lens, I love mine.

 

[Vicelord John]

I was originally thinking that, but Ken Rockwell's less than stellar review talked me out of it.

though he does have quite the boner for VR and that probably swayed his review a lot.

 

[PatrickHMS]

I was originally thinking that, but Ken Rockwell's less than stellar review talked me out of it.

though he does have quite the boner for VR and that probably swayed his review a lot.

Check Thom Hogan and some of the other more reliable reviews. KR is mostly a self-absorbed shill, and a legend in his own little mind. IF he takes as many photos as he claims, like all the bodies and lenses with THOUSANDS of shots on each, where does he get time to do all those reviews.

He even admits within his website that he likes to pull people's legs.

But I like his site for good shots of the lenses, since he is high in search engines.

Get the lens, try it, if you don't like it, sell it. There is littel chance you would lose any money doing that, and you might come up with a bargain lens.

Haven't you personally found a lens you really like, that others don't and gets less than great reviews? I know I have.

Maybe the 70-300mm isn't a 2.8, but it doesn't cost like one either. I think that it is a good deal for that focal length for maybe $75.00 used.

 

[dhilberg]

The Nikon 70-300 Non-VR lens is not very good. It's very soft at the long end and has high CA. The VR version is much, much better all around.

Here's a more technical review of the two:

Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 D ED - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR - Review / Lab Test Report

If you're looking to not spend much money, check the used market. You can get a used 80-200 f/2.8 one-ring for the same price or a little cheaper than a new 70-300 VR. A couple hundred more will get you a used two-ring version, which is 10x the lens the 70-300 VR is.

 

[Vicelord John]

yeah, that is what worries me the most is that 2-300 range being soft. There are some great mountain views of the city here in Phoenix and one of my favorite city shots is shot at 300. I need those to be sharp, and the Sigma is actually decent at that.

 

[KmH]

No doubt, if you're happy with the Sigma, hang on to it.

Don't spend money on photography until you need to spend money on photography to continue your photographic growth.

Study lenses, because they are more important to image quality than camera bodies are. But, until you have a pretty solid understanding of how your camera body works, you're not likely to get maximum performance from the lenses you have now.

Lenses don't get upgraded nearly as often as camera bodies do, plus they tend to be more expensive than camera bodies, making them a longer term investment.

 

[Eco]

If you are looking for a used 70-300 VR I'm selling one Since I mostly shoot off of tripods I don't see the need for VR but if you shoot by hand you might see the need.

BTW, Sach...... is selling a non VR in the Buy & Sell section for small money if you are interested in a used one.