super zoom

[jcdeboever]

jc, you did fine researching before posting. My comment is about understanding your confusion after mentioning that you listened to rockwell.

I had it for a while. it's much better than anything else in the price range.

it was sharp in the studio when doing selfies, and decent enough at 300mm. I mean it's no 300mm 2.8, but it's better than the 55-300.

Thanks guys.

That's what I suspected in regards to Rockwell. He comes up at the top in a lot of lens search's so I figured he was a photography guru. How he finds the time is beyond me. I discovered he steered me wrong on my setting up the D3300, guess that should have told me something.

If you know SEO, then you can come up on the top of your searches, doesn't mean you are right or the expert.

Right. I do know quite a bit about search engine optimization. I guess I got all enamoured with his content being a noob and all. [emoji21]

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[SCraig]

That's what I suspected in regards to Rockwell. He comes up at the top in a lot of lens search's so I figured he was a photography guru. How he finds the time is beyond me. I discovered he steered me wrong on my setting up the D3300, guess that should have told me something.

Take a look at his "About" page. Specifically the second line of the introduction that states that the site is a work of fiction and the product of his imagination.

 

[astroNikon]

Take a look at his "About" page. Specifically the second line of the introduction that states that the site is a work of fiction and the product of his imagination.

Problem is .. THIS site is a product of our imagination ... LOL
Present company not withstanding of course ...

 

[jcdeboever]

That's what I suspected in regards to Rockwell. He comes up at the top in a lot of lens search's so I figured he was a photography guru. How he finds the time is beyond me. I discovered he steered me wrong on my setting up the D3300, guess that should have told me something.

Take a look at his "About" page. Specifically the second line of the introduction that states that the site is a work of fiction and the product of his imagination.

Well darn it all, who reads those about sections! Guess I better start...[emoji13]

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

btw, who makes a 70-300 f/4 lens for Nikon ??

 

[jaomul]

First post you say tamron vc 70-300 has no motor and is not compatible with d3300.

It has and it is

 

[astroNikon]

First post you say tamron vc 70-300 has no motor and is not compatible with d3300.

It has and it is

I think the older version was purchased instead of the newer version with a confusion of nomenclature.
"the Tamron 70-300 di VC was not compatible on my D3300 (no focus motor), I need a di II. "

 

[jcdeboever]

That's what I suspected in regards to Rockwell. He comes up at the top in a lot of lens search's so I figured he was a photography guru. How he finds the time is beyond me. I discovered he steered me wrong on my setting up the D3300, guess that should have told me something.

Take a look at his "About" page. Specifically the second line of the introduction that states that the site is a work of fiction and the product of his imagination.

Well darn it all, who reads those about sections! Guess I better start...[emoji13]

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I meant to post 4.5- 5.6. Darn spell check.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

First post you say tamron vc 70-300 has no motor and is not compatible with d3300.

It has and it is

I think the older version was purchased instead of the newer version with a confusion of nomenclature.
"the Tamron 70-300 di VC was not compatible on my D3300 (no focus motor), I need a di II. "

Well, it didn't work right and made clunking noise, probably damaged in shipping. KEH said it had no focus motor in it and I was out of luck. They said i needed to order the DI II . i think they were wrong. Tamrons web said it should work. It was a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP DI VC USD AF . They denied it until the end so I said it was thought defective because the manual focus was bad as well. They took it back after I was very polite and challenged them with screen shots. So I really have no issue with them.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I think the Tamron 70-300 VC might actually be a little better performer than the Nikon 70-300 VR-G, which is an f/4.5~5.6 lens. I don't own the Tamron, but I have the 70-300 VR-G, which is a pretty good lens, but it does have a couple of issues. NO, it is not as sharp at the longer end as it is at the 70-240mm range, but that's fairly typical for most tele-zooms, and especially for lenses that are aimed at the consumer market and which do not cost a lot of money. There have been a number of people who've owned both the Tamron VC and the Nikon VR, and they seem to mostly say the Tamron is slightly better in performance. I do not think the Nikon is automatically a slam-dunk choice in a 70-300 zoom.

The 70-300 VR is a nice, light, handy zoom, and it covers FX Nikon. I use it on FX. Its biggest problem is focusing...it has a few issues...it can fail to focus two or three or four or five times in an afternoon...this is a well-known issue with this lens. At times, you'll hit the button to focus, and the lens will just...sit there, and you'll need to manually grab the focusing ring and turn it to initiate focus. Or, the lens will hunt a bit when a faster-aperture lens will just lock on...and when a subject suddenly pops up! at a significantly different distance than the lens is focused at, it can often just NOT begin the focusing process. This can be freaking annoying. But this is not all that uncommon with slow-aperture zoom lenses.

300mm is NOT that long for outdoor work on smaller subjects. If you want to "reach out", 300mm is easily bettered by much longer zooms these days, but those too are slow-aperture lenses, and in the $400-$500 range, you'll be buying a used Sigma that is also slow-aperture.

 

[jaomul]

First post you say tamron vc 70-300 has no motor and is not compatible with d3300.

It has and it is

I think the older version was purchased instead of the newer version with a confusion of nomenclature.
"the Tamron 70-300 di VC was not compatible on my D3300 (no focus motor), I need a di II. "

Well, it didn't work right and made clunking noise, probably damaged in shipping. KEH said it had no focus motor in it and I was out of luck. They said i needed to order the DI II . i think they were wrong. Tamrons web said it should work. It was a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP DI VC USD AF . They denied it until the end so I said it was thought defective because the manual focus was bad as well. They took it back after I was very polite and challenged them with screen shots. So I really have no issue with them.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

May have been damaged. USD is ultrasonic drive, which is tamrons version of fast quiet motor, similar to nikons swm silent wave motor, or hsm hyper sonic motor in sigma lenses. My definition may be slightly off but the usd lens should have worked.

It is quite good, maybe try another one

 

[jcdeboever]

I think the Tamron 70-300 VC might actually be a little better performer than the Nikon 70-300 VR-G, which is an f/4.5~5.6 lens. I don't own the Tamron, but I have the 70-300 VR-G, which is a pretty good lens, but it does have a couple of issues. NO, it is not as sharp at the longer end as it is at the 70-240mm range, but that's fairly typical for most tele-zooms, and especially for lenses that are aimed at the consumer market and which do not cost a lot of money. There have been a number of people who've owned both the Tamron VC and the Nikon VR, and they seem to mostly say the Tamron is slightly better in performance. I do not think the Nikon is automatically a slam-dunk choice in a 70-300 zoom.

The 70-300 VR is a nice, light, handy zoom, and it covers FX Nikon. I use it on FX. Its biggest problem is focusing...it has a few issues...it can fail to focus two or three or four or five times in an afternoon...this is a well-known issue with this lens. At times, you'll hit the button to focus, and the lens will just...sit there, and you'll need to manually grab the focusing ring and turn it to initiate focus. Or, the lens will hunt a bit when a faster-aperture lens will just lock on...and when a subject suddenly pops up! at a significantly different distance than the lens is focused at, it can often just NOT begin the focusing process. This can be freaking annoying. But this is not all that uncommon with slow-aperture zoom lenses.

300mm is NOT that long for outdoor work on smaller subjects. If you want to "reach out", 300mm is easily bettered by much longer zooms these days, but those too are slow-aperture lenses, and in the $400-$500 range, you'll be buying a used Sigma that is also slow-aperture.

So am I correct in that the lens I referenced would work on a d3300? I might just get that Bigma or save up and get the 200-500. What do you think?
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens

Fast, furious & flexible: Testing the new Nikkor 200-500mm at the Belgian Grand Prix | I AM NIKON Blog

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[SquarePeg]

Just a heads up in case you didn't see it - the Tamron 70-300 (Di VC f/4-5.6) currently has a $100 rebate offer - final price $349.

 

[dannylightning]

you can get a the sigma 150-500 for a pretty good price right now, i got allot of really nice photos with mine. ill post a couple of pics that i took with that lens...

if you do not go with a 150-600 type lens i would get at least a 400mm lens or something that will work well with a teleconverter to get you to the 400-600mm range.

the nikon 200-500 will definitely work on your camera, any lens with a nikon mount and a built in focus motor will work. if you plan to hand hold the lens make sure you get something with image stabilization too. i cant do a tripod for willd life, it slows me down and i miss shots. a mono pod is pretty nice but that is often up off the ground when shooting things in trees, i just use it so i can sling the camera over my shoulder and rest the weight of the lens and cameras on the ground when i am just standing around waiting for something to come along.

chipmunk DSC_0586 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr

great blue heron DSC_0403 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr

 

[jcdeboever]

Thanks Dannylighting. I'm still thinking things over. I think that is high on the list.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk