Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR

[Rich.]

I'm looking for a lens for wildlife photography. I came across the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR. The lens will be for a Nikon D7100. Is there a better lens in the same price range as this lens?

 

[Derrel]

Probably not a better lens than that in that particular class...

 

[SCraig]

I agree with Derrel. I have one and love it. It isn't long enough for small birds unless you sneak up pretty close, but it is a great all-purpose lens.

 

[480sparky]

+2. For the money, it's one of the best you can get.

 

[Derrel]

DxOMark - Wildlife Lenses: telephoto-zoom round up

This article really has some good research info on lenses in this category.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I just bought this lens a few days ago and had an opportunity to shoot with it quite a bit already. So far I'm very impressed with this lens. The images it produces are excellent. The VR works great. It focuses well. Low light performance is average but it's not what this lens is for. The lens is also decent built and great to handle. Fact that it can be used on FX bodies down the line is a bonus too. I should tell you though that if you're strictly buying this for wildlife photography you may be a bit short on the reach. To fill the frame with a bird, squirrel or small duck for example you're going to have to get within about 10 meters or so (this is just a guess) which may not be practical in some situations. By the way, I did not notice any IQ degeneration issues some people speak of when you're shooting between the 200mm to 300mm range. Sharp to me in all ranges as far as I can tell so far.

 

[bc_steve]

I'm looking for a lens for wildlife photography. I came across the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR. The lens will be for a Nikon D7100. Is there a better lens in the same price range as this lens?

Nope. Get it.

 

[JaronRH]

I used to own this lens (sold it to fund my 70-200 VRII) and it did very well for outdoor wildlife photography! Go for it!

 

[shadowlands]

I use to own it also. Great lens! I think I saw cameta with a refurb for something like $350.00 or $380.00ish...

 

[Chad]

For the money and its class, you simple can not beat it. I have had one for 4 years now and have continually produced sharp pictures. You are on a DX body which will help for distance - you can reach about 450mm. If you are looking for a pro glass up grade the 80-400 VR is excellent. Extreme sharp photos and on a DX body it turns it into a realatively cheap 600mm lens (the real one goes for about 10 dimes!)

 

[oldhippy]

Have it, Love it, Buy it you won't be sorry.

 

[TheLost]

It's a gateway lens.... It's sharp... It has a fast Auto focus... It's built great... but soon you'll start craving f/2.8... and the next thing you know you'll start selling your kids toy's for a 70-200 f/2.8VRII.

IMHO, your better off with the crappy plastic Nikon 55-300mm.... Your expectations will be lower and you'll save money in the long run


(70-300VR is a great lens.. to do any better you need to spend $2k on the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII)

 

[bc_steve]

Ha, it is a gateway lens. I want something better, but it fills the void until I am willing to put the big money out there. The 70-200 won't cut it though, I want more reach.

I would disagree on the 55-300 though. Is it really that much cheaper? Why not take better pictures in the meantime.