Nikon 70-300mm lens

[nyrfan44]

I'm going a little nuts trying to make the right choice on which form of the Nikon 70-300mm lens that is worth purchasing. I have read multiple articles and reviews and have ask many people which version is best. I'm trying to keep in mind price value with quality and also actual need of options. Do I really need the VR option which is priced at $459,00 or for someone that is new to this as i am should i just stick with the basic model price at $150.00. I hope to purchase this lens within the next week or so. Also what accessories, if needed should I purchase with the lens.

Thank you in advance.

[NaturesPixel]

hmm this a hard decision...

ask your self this... do you think you will need a longer zoom a little later down the track?? If so i would just get the basic 70-300mm NO VR and save my $$ for the 80-400mm VR

From what i have read and seen from images from both lenses, you are still going to have to shoot at f8-f11 at the 300mm mark with the VR

really don't think the VR is worth it on a lens that reality has the same glass as the cheaper lens...

just my 2¢ worth

[nyrfan44]

Well, thank you. I've been agonizing over it for a few weeks now. Yes, in the future I will have to up to the 80-400mm. Actually from what I've been told it's going to be a must buy in the due time. I'll hopefully make my finale decision this weekend with a little more research into this. I don't want to buy something and then wish or find out that I should have gone with the other one. I'm trying to make as an informed purchase as I can.

Quick question. Should I or do I need a teleconverter with a lens such as this.

[NaturesPixel]

ya cant use a tele converter on either lenses.. nor the 80-400

you loose far to much light coming into the sensor..

are you buying from local store?? if so... ask if you are not happy with purchase can you bring back and exchange for different model with in 15 days.. my camera store lets me do this worth askin ^.^

[nyrfan44]

Ok good, than I don't need to spend the extra money, thanks.

I guess a teleconverter is for smaller lenses then huh?

The store that I plan to purchase at is B&H Photo. I have been very happy with them so far.

[Tifosi248F1]

Well, I'd like to add my 2 cents to the discussion. I had the $150 70-300 lens and I didn't keep it longer than about 10 days. I missed a lot of good shots due to the difficulty of holding such a lens steady. When you use the old 1/focal length addage for safe hand holding, you need about a/500 shutter speed. You can of course get away with a longer shutter speed if your technique is perfect and you have steady hands but you'll likely still be above 1/320. The lens is not very good wide open at 300mm. There are a few shots of starfish on my flickr that show just what happens when you have to use a larger aperture just to get the right shutter speed. The DOF just wasn't enough to keep the arms in focus.

I bought the VR version and I could not be happier. I have put it thru some situations where you wouldn't expect it to do well, and it surpassed my expectations. I was even able to shoot ice hockey with it, and granted the shutter speed was still a bit slow to freeze fast action, I still got a bunch of decent shots. The optics of it are far better than the cheap lens, although the sweet spot is still f/8-f/11 at 300mm and it isn't as sharp as the big fast lenses. It is definately an improvement. The reason the TCs don't work is because the lens is slow at f/5.6. Adding a TC makes the maximum aperture shrink to f/8 or even f/11, and auto focus is unreliable at best at such apertures. Factor in the sweet spot of the lens and you're looking at shooting at f/16, which is going to give you a very slow shutter speed unless you are in fantastic light.

I personally don't see the 80-400mm as a great lens, but that's just me. It's big and by all acounts, one of the slowest focusing Nikon lenses, and would definately be a chore to hand hold, even with the VR. Most people I have seen discussing it say you get better results with a 70-200 f/2.8 and a teleconverter, however that's a few hundred $$ more to pay. You do lose the wider end by adding a TC, but if you're going for the reach you're probably not concerned with the wide end. Plus there are 3rd party long lenses that might be a better option, such as the Sigma 50-500mm "Bigma" or a Tamron 200-500mm. And lastly there is the possibility that Nikon might update the 80-400mm or introduce something to replace it.

You really can't go wrong with the 70-300VR, and chances are it will hold its value very well so you can sell it if you decide that you do want to get an 80-400 or something else. The same can not be said about the $150 70-300mm. If you have the option, I would do as Leisa suggests and find the cheap 70-300 at a store near you, which judging by your name and image is the actual B&H store. I envy you. Try it out for a few days and you will probably come to the same conclusion that it just doesn't deliver, even for such a small price. If you are set on spending way less than the $450 for the VR, the Sigma 70-300mm APO such as Leisa has is a better lens compared to the Nikon and is somewhere around $220 I believe.

Those however are just my opinions, and you may find otherwise. The best thing to do is test it yourself because only you know what will please you. Good luck. And I HATE the Rangers...but Messier was and still is a class act.;)

[nyrfan44]

Well thank you very much for your post. It was very informative. Now that I now some more about the VR lens from Nikon and other companies I shall do a bit more research before I make my final choice. As for hating the Rangers, BITE ME:D LOL...Yeah I'm b=going to use whatever lens i buy for both work and RANGERS (beating either Philly or Pitts). So I will need a good lens. Thank you once again.


LETS GO RANGERS:D

[Saralonde]

Rangers beat PENS-no way!!

[Tifosi248F1]

Haha! Glad I could be helpful. If you do intend to use whichever lens for hockey games, you may be pretty disappointed. Since they are max f/5.6 they don't do so well indoors for fast action. One thing though is the 70-300VR might be easier to get into MSG since it's not too big. Since I saw you post in the D50 owners thread I can tell you that the AF-S of the 70-300 will also be a huge help. The 80-400 uses the screwdriver focusing mechanism from inside the camera body, and the smaller, weaker motor in the D50 will make it very slow. A body like a D200 makes the focusing of the 80-400 a little more tolerable. When you check out other brands, look for HSM lenses from Sigma, they are the equivalent to Nikon's AF-S. Good luck, and GO PENS! (and Ducks)

[nyrfan44]

Rangers beat PENS-no way!!

Oh you wait!!!!!!!!!!

[mikem12188]

Go Devils!!!!!

[nyrfan44]

Haha! Glad I could be helpful. If you do intend to use whichever lens for hockey games, you may be pretty disappointed. Since they are max f/5.6 they don't do so well indoors for fast action. One thing though is the 70-300VR might be easier to get into MSG since it's not too big. Since I saw you post in the D50 owners thread I can tell you that the AF-S of the 70-300 will also be a huge help. The 80-400 uses the screwdriver focusing mechanism from inside the camera body, and the smaller, weaker motor in the D50 will make it very slow. A body like a D200 makes the focusing of the 80-400 a little more tolerable. When you check out other brands, look for HSM lenses from Sigma, they are the equivalent to Nikon's AF-S. Good luck, and GO PENS! (and Ducks)

Thanks, I'm most likely going to purchase the Nikon 70-300VR and UV filter to go with it. It's the better choice for what I'm going to use the lens for. Most of the pictures till hockey season (When the Rangers will beat the Pitt's Water Fowl :rolleyes: ) I will be using it for action photos at work which things move very fast. I'll make sure to post my first pic's with the lens on here.

Thank you again everyone. you have all been very helpful...

[nyrfan44]

Go Devils!!!!!


Devils fans are myth, they don't exist....... just ask Lou Lamerillo..:rolleyes:

[nyrfan44]

How is this for an alternative lens instead of the Nikon..

This is the Sigma 70-300 APO ED

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/396830-REG/Sigma_508306_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html

[Saralonde]

Oh you wait!!!!!!!!!!

Jagr vs Crosby, should be some interesting games next year!

[nyrfan44]

Jagr vs Crosby, should be some interesting games next year!


I can't wait till next season. I this is going to be the Rangers year to go all the way. With the right trades and call-ups. I have never photographed a game before and I am looking forward to it..

[Tifosi248F1]

The Sigma is , from what I have seen, better than the cheap Nikon 70-300. All of the 70-300 lenses have trade-offs. They need a lot of good light to be effective for fast action, they produce soft images especially at the widest aperture and at 300mm, some are soft from 200 to 300. Since you plan to use it at work, you should be good during the day but in the evening and night you'll likely struggle getting shutter speeds fast enough to freeze real fast action. One option would be to go with the Sigma APO and a Nikon SB-600 or SB-800 speedlight (flash) which will give you decent results during the day and get you the extra light at night, although the combination won't be so good for Rangers games. The "best" options are pretty pricey and involve either a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 with VR, not as much reach but the low light performance is 2 stops better and they don't suffer from soft images wide open. This is the bad thing about cameras, so many options and you have to decide if cost or performance is what drives you. The 70-300VR is however likely the best price/performance out there for an enthusiastic amateur, or a used 80-200 f/2.8.

[nyrfan44]

The Sigma is , from what I have seen, better than the cheap Nikon 70-300. All of the 70-300 lenses have trade-offs. They need a lot of good light to be effective for fast action, they produce soft images especially at the widest aperture and at 300mm, some are soft from 200 to 300. Since you plan to use it at work, you should be good during the day but in the evening and night you'll likely struggle getting shutter speeds fast enough to freeze real fast action. One option would be to go with the Sigma APO and a Nikon SB-600 or SB-800 speedlight (flash) which will give you decent results during the day and get you the extra light at night, although the combination won't be so good for Rangers games. The "best" options are pretty pricey and involve either a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 with VR, not as much reach but the low light performance is 2 stops better and they don't suffer from soft images wide open. This is the bad thing about cameras, so many options and you have to decide if cost or performance is what drives you. The 70-300VR is however likely the best price/performance out there for an enthusiastic amateur, or a used 80-200 f/2.8.

Oddly enough.. I work nights LOL.....


So I guess my research is done. The Nikon 70-300 it is....Thank you all for your help..



Let's Go Rangers..

[uvsub]

Les canadiens de Montreal jusqu'au bout! Anyhow, I purchased the 70-300mm lens without VR, tested it for a few days and ran back to the camera shop to get the VR version.

The VR version isn't that much more expensive but it performs beautifully. From 70-200 the lens sharpness is excellent with very little distortion, while at 300mm the sharpness is good. Sharpen them up in CS3 and they become excellent. I'm able to hand hold this lens and shoot at least two stops below the other lens.

The regular lens is dirt cheap and it performs like it. Even on the tripod I had trouble getting sharp images. In the middle of the afternoon it was easy, but in cloudy or dimmer light the lens was useless.

Spend that little extra and do yourself a favour. Remember this is a 450mm lens by 35mm standards. I used it the other day to get some great grizzily shot which I will share with the group once my Flickr account problems are resolved.

I may still have some of the test shots I took with both lens.

[nyrfan44]

Well, I have finally amassed enough money to purchase the 70-300mm VR. hopefully I shall have by the end of this week. thanks for all your help everyone.

Let's Go Rangers.