Camera Labs

hi could someone please tell what they think of the 70-300mm G or the 70-300 ED because i have seen so many different reviews , mostly bad , but are they really that bad , i known there not perfect , what do you think,do you own one i would like to know what your view is

cheers

_________________
Nikon D80
18-70mm
70 - 210 D

You get what you pay for to be honest. If your budget will stretch to the gelded version then that one is better. Although if your budget will stretch that far Id recommend a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

From what I've heard the 70-300 VR is surprisingly good, but the cheap 70-300 not so much.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Thom Hogan has a review on both. If budget allows, go for the VR version, if you dont need 300mm, go for the Sigma 70-200/2.8.

_________________
- Wout -
Nikon D80 with 18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX
Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod with 488RC0 midi ballhead
Lowepro CompuRover AW and Nova 200 AW

I'm perfectly satisfied with my 70-300VR. Its performance is really excellent, and the VR is worthwhile.

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

I recently got a Nikon 70-300mm VR ED lens after a weeks of researches and I am extremely happy I made the choice. VR mode is very helpful and it will not affect your sharpness. Also I love the AF-S mode really helpful when you take wildlife or macro.. etc.

Here is a picture I took with 70-300mm lens VR -Normal mode. (50% cropped)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=16773120&l=33171553e7&id=755295103

_________________
Nikon D3000
Nikkor DX VR AF 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G
Nikkor ED VR AF-S 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G

Tests show that VR WILL affect your sharpness, but only if you're using very high shutter speeds (at which point you can just turn VR off. Saves battery life, too!).

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

I agree with Hilary

As long as you're not shoting in low light, and have the need for the extra reach, the 70-300 VR is good - the non VR is "poo" though. Some reviews suggest that the VR version loses sharpness nearer 300mm, but my version's good right up to 300mm.

Compared to a 2.8 its pretty lightweight as well...

I'd go for the Nikon 70-300VR:
- good image quality
- good price/performance ratio
- small and light-weight compared to any 70-200/2.8
- very good reach with the 300mm focal length

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

hi guys thanks for your views , i know the vr is gd just wanted to know about the other two , is the G and the ED that bad lol

_________________
Nikon D80
18-70mm
70 - 210 D

The AF-S VR is just a very big leap compared the others. It is worth the money over the cheaper ones.

_________________
- Wout -
Nikon D80 with 18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX
Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod with 488RC0 midi ballhead
Lowepro CompuRover AW and Nova 200 AW

Hi
Didn't want to start another 70-300mm thread..
I thinking of trading in my Tamron 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 macro A17 for the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR.
I find the long end performance a bit too mushy for me with the tamron, so i don't find myself using it.
Ive only kept it for the macro function really.
So i guess i should see a big jump in IQ with the Nikon but is it still usable as a macro type lens? I see 1.37m minimum focus distance.
Anyone have experience using the lens like that?
Cheers

At 0.25x I'd say not really.

It's really an "informal" close-up lens, and at 300mm, depth of field is minute, close up.

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

I would go for the 70-300mm ED VR. I noted that Jeremy recommended the sigma. Make sure you dont want to use it for nature/zoo photography because 200mm wont be enough range for many situation (Even 300mm is a bit tight sometimes).

Do you want enough light and not enough range with the sigma or just raise up the ISO and take the shot with decent range (300mm). High iso noise can be fixed, not enough range is no picture at all.

I made many photos of animals in zoo's or just in the wild. 200mm wont be enough. Whats the point of having enough light but you cant get close enough to make a decent picture.

Nikkor 70-300m needs at least 1,5 meter between lens and focus point across the entire zoomrange. Its not that big of a deal since most of the time its further away then that anyway. Its not an indoor lens.

Cheers guys
I guess i could use something else for macro stuff, just a thought really.
I want something thats sharper at the long end compared to the Tamron.
Mainly wildlife and a bit of motor sport / motocross when it comes up.
I took the Nikon AF-S 18-105mm VR along with me to the Goodwood Festival of speed a few weeks back as ive not really used it since getting it with the D90 about a year ago.
I found most shots were around the 100mm focal length when at the track side, could of done with a bit more reach sometimes.
I brought an older Nikon 200mm f4 prime which takes great pictures, but all manual with no metering on the D90.
Would the 70-300 ED VR get close to that sort of IQ at the long end, i know zooms aren't going to be as good as a prime.