Camera Labs

I am debating between these two lenses for my D90. I've heard the the 70-300 has better build quality all around but is more expensive and the autofocus is faster. The autofocus speed is a concern of mine as I have a kid in sports and would like to get some pictures of an air show coming up, of course image quality is also a concern but I'm not a pixel peeper. Does anybody know if the speed of the autofocus would be an issue? I don't need the best lens available but I don't want a pile of junk either. Also if there is another brand that you can recomend I would consider that also. I am pretty decided on a 300mm unless there is a good reason not to get that much zoom.

_________________
Nikon D90 18-105, 35mm f1.8, Nikon 70-300mm
Nikon SB-600
Panasonic FZ28
Canon SD750
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/37592444@N03/

I'm completely happy with my 70-300. I don't do a lot of active shooting, but when I have done (birds in flight mostly), the lens performs very well indeed.

If you are shooting at night you might like to test the lighting conditions to see if f5.6 at the long end meets your requirements, remembering that the D90 is competent in lower light. Of course, with the f2.8 zoms, you lose some focal length.

And in the 18-105 you have a lens that mates well with the 70-300.

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

The 70-300 I believe would be a better choice. It's a better optical performer, it has a much better build and has some useful features such as a manual focus override function, a focusing window, and as you mentioned the better AF.

You could also look at a few other lenses that may suit you well. There's the 70-200 f/2.8, which although it is more expensive and you lose 100mm, it opticially blows the 70-300 and 55-300 out of the water, and offers a much faster aperture. There's also the 300mm f/4 prime, which is priced in between the 70-300 and 70-200, is very sharp (considering that it's a prime lens) and gives you an extra 100mm over the 70-200 and an extra stop of brightness over the 70-300. There's also of course the 300mm f/2.8, but unless you have $5000 to throw around, I couldn't recommend it.

What's your budget on this lens?

-Evan

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams

I'm looking to spend aroudn $350, I can get the 55-300 for less on Amazon and there is a used 70-300 for $350 on there.

_________________
Nikon D90 18-105, 35mm f1.8, Nikon 70-300mm
Nikon SB-600
Panasonic FZ28
Canon SD750
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/37592444@N03/

That takes the 70-200mm and the 300mm f4 out, so I'd go for the 70-300. It's a fair deal sharper, the faster AF does make a difference and if you ever do want to upgrade to FX full frame in the future (which may become more common with the prices of FX cameras dropping) you'll still have some pretty good glass.

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams