Good Telephoto Lenses?

[yrot.tory]

what would be some good prized, good quality telephoto lenses for Nikon D90?
it's probably my christmas present... so reasonable price would be best.

[OsmosisStudios]

The Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR

Straight up Nikon's best telephoto lens for the money. Its just a hair shy of the 70-200 in the same range, provides an extra 100mm of reach, costs about 35-40% of the price and is smaller and lighter.

[kirbinster]

They are both good lenses. The 70-300 is an excellent value, but the 70-200 is one of the best lenses made. It is super sharp and fast (f/2.8).

[Shokinen]

The Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR is definitely the best bang for the buck. I have one, Osmosis has one, Kirbinster has one...

There is a nice review here:
Nikkor 70-300mm VR tested with Nikon D80 full review Cameralabs introduction

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is too expensinve IMO (that's me) for what I'm doing. If I want to shoot sport, I just make sure it's during daylight.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by Shokinen

The Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR is definitely the best bang for the buck. I have one, Osmosis has one, Kirbinster has one...

There is a nice review here:
Nikkor 70-300mm VR tested with Nikon D80 full review Cameralabs introduction

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is too expensinve IMO (that's me) for what I'm doing. If I want to shoot sport, I just make sure it's during daylight.

Well I thought the same, until I said what the heck and picked up the 70-200. It beats my 70-300 in sharpness, focus speed, low light capability hands down. But it costs a lot of money. You have to make the analysis for yourself if it is worth the money. I think it is, but that is just me.

[nokiN]

The AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR lens is a pro lens and that is why it costs what it does.

The AF-S 70-300 f/4.5 5.6 is a consumer lens, but a very good one at it's price point.

Another lens to consider in that focal range is the AF 80-200 f/2.8D (1/2 the price of the 70-200). It doesn't have VR, but the value of VR is arguable. In fact, if a VR lens is tripod mounted, Nikon recommends turning off VR.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by nokiN

The AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR lens is a pro lens and that is why it costs what it does.

The AF-S 70-300 f/4.5 5.6 is a consumer lens, but a very good one at it's price point.

Another lens to consider in that focal range is the AF 80-200 f/2.8D (1/2 the price of the 70-200). It doesn't have VR, but the value of VR is arguable. In fact, if a VR lens is tripod mounted, Nikon recommends turning off VR.

I agree with everything you say, except the value of the VR. I had an 80-200 f/2.8 D (the two ring model) and it is a great lens - BUT. It weighs a ton, and I hardly ever used it because you had to have support for it. That is part of the reason why I got the 70-200 AF-S VR. I sold the 80-200 after I got the 70-200. The other reason was the 70-200 would autofocus on my D5000 also, which the 80-200 would not. I think I have only used the 70-200 once on a tripod, it is great hand-held.

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Well I thought the same, until I said what the heck and picked up the 70-200.

I understand totally what you mean. There is a guys at work who rent one for the weekend to capture his girlfriend doing skydiving. He brought it at work and I got the chance to actually try it with my D90.

It's definitly another category for both opticaly and build quality. You cannot compare them. I didn't want to give it back hahaha.

It's on my wish list but there is many other thing I want to buy before that. The 70-300mm suit me for now.

[kirbinster]

While I love my 70-300VR for some things, it does have some significant limitations - the biggest is the very slow autofocus. I had it on my D5000 this morning and spotted a great Blue Heron, but the autofocus was so slow that I missed most of the in-flight shots. This would not have been the case with the 70-200.