Time to replace the kit telephoto...

[nola.ron]

Looking to finally replace my old kit tele I got with my D3K that I'm (don't yell at me) using from time to time on my D7K. I'm tired of the poor IQ, especially after processing a few shots I was excited about very recently. I'm looking for sharpness in the usable focus range. I'm not a birder so I don't need huge reach but I would like 200mm to produce a good sharp image.I would LOVE a 2.8 but I'm not trying to spend that kind of cash when I primarily use my 50mm 1.8G whenever I can.

My budget is around $300-$550 new or used. I have been looking at the 70-300 Nikon AF-S VR 4.5-5.6 but I'm not sure if that lens is going to be sharp enough for me.

Planned Use:
Wildlife at parks
Portraits (head shots)
Race tracks

Must have:
Image Stabilization
Sharp IQ at 75-200
non-rotating front element

Could care less about:
weight
size
manufacturer

 

[devaji108]

I have the 70-300VR and it a pretty good lens. I think it a good one in your price range.... but I just ordered the sigma 70-200f2.8 i'll see if I notice the deference if not it's going back!

 

[jr19]

I also just ordered the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and it came in today, so I'll be putting it on my camera as soon as I get off work! I also used the 70-300mm VR this weekend to shoot some photos at an outdoor kids birthday party. I like the lens, and the reach is nice, but I do not find it to be an extremely sharp lens. However, I am still pretty amateurish, so that may have something to do with it. That being said, I still think the 70-300mm is a nice lens...especially for the money.

 

[goodguy]

I have the 70-300VR and it a pretty good lens. I think it a good one in your price range.... but I just ordered the sigma 70-200f2.8 i'll see if I notice the deference if not it's going back!

I just bought this lens used for 280$ in near mint condition.
I highly recommend you to get this lens.
Up to 200mm is super sharp, at around 300mm its just a bit soft but when scaling down a bit you are fine.
If you think you will use it most of the time in the 200mm then that's the sweet spot of the lens and you will love it.
Its not the fastest lens on the planet but the VR compensate for it and for its price you simply cant go wrong.

 

[bc_steve]

Looking to finally replace my old kit tele I got with my D3K that I'm (don't yell at me) using from time to time on my D7K. I'm tired of the poor IQ, especially after processing a few shots I was excited about very recently. I'm looking for sharpness in the usable focus range. I'm not a birder so I don't need huge reach but I would like 200mm to produce a good sharp image.I would LOVE a 2.8 but I'm not trying to spend that kind of cash when I primarily use my 50mm 1.8G whenever I can.

My budget is around $300-$550 new or used. I have been looking at the 70-300 Nikon AF-S VR 4.5-5.6 but I'm not sure if that lens is going to be sharp enough for me.

Planned Use:
Wildlife at parks
Portraits (head shots)
Race tracks

Must have:
Image Stabilization
Sharp IQ at 75-200
non-rotating front element

Could care less about:
weight
size
manufacturer

In your price range look at the 70-300 VR or a used 80-200 f/2.8 (no VR though)

 

[clarnibass]

The two most obvious options are the Tamron and Nikon 70-300mm. I recently checked both (two of the Nikon and one Tamron) and chose the Tamron. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages but both are good unless you spend about $1,000 more or go for a prime with no VR.

 

[EONOnly]

Both Sigma 70-200 2.8 (non-OS version) and Tamron 70-200 2.8 are nice lenses and can be found used for what you have. I think they are optically better than N70-300, but they lack VR.

 

[nola.ron]

Thanks, everyone! I just ordered the Nikon 70-300.

 

[goodguy]

Thanks, everyone! I just ordered the Nikon 70-300.

I am sure you are going to love it just as I do.

Enjoy your new lens

 

[sm4him]

Congratulations on the new lens! You won't be disappointed with that choice--I love mine! Until I got the Sigma 150-500 a couple of months ago, that was my main lens for birds and other wildlife, and IMO, it's plenty sharp. Even at 300mm, so long as *I* nailed focus and had my settings right, it's quite decent. Here's one taken at 300mm.

Here's another one at about 200mm (210mm, actually); I think they're both plenty sharp. Would a 2.8 lens perform better?? OH, Yeah, it would...but for the price, that 70-300 is a really good compromise.

 

[cgipson1]

Thanks, everyone! I just ordered the Nikon 70-300.

For that money, the 70-300 VR is one of the best lenses you can get.

 

[nola.ron]

Got the 70-300 in today. Only had time for a couple of test shots because I was quickly losing light.. by time I got to anything worth shooting it was too dark for this lens and had to use my 50. Anyways, I'm impressed by the sharpness here in this one test shot. I can't wait to use it tomorrow for the first real time. I knew the kit tele was bad, but wow it couldn't get anything close to this IQ.


Nikon 70-300 Test Shot by nola-ron, on Flickr

 

[Pascal020]

Looking good already. Have fun with your new lens.