70-300mm Lens for Nikon D3000

[mebemelissa]

I was hoping to get a new lens for either Christmas or my birthday, but I couldn't decide between these two:

Amazon.com: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR: Camera & Photo

I read that the Nikon lens is better for Nikon cameras but made cheaply.

[firebox40dash5]

Originally Posted by mebemelissa

I read that the Nikon lens is better for Nikon cameras but made cheaply.

If they're talking about the old, non-VR 70-300mm VR, I agree that it's cheaply made. If they're saying the VR model (in your link) is made cheaply, I say their standards are too high for a sub-$500 telephoto zoom. I had one for 2 years, just got rid of it for a 70-200VRII about a month ago. It was the second lens I bought, and I didn't regret it for a second. Its construction and performance are in line with Nikon's advanced-amateur lenses.

If you want a Tamron, this one is reportedly as good or better than the 70-300VR, but it also costs about as much. I don't know anything about how the Tamron you linked performs, but I'd beware for $160. If for no other reason than because 300mm at f/5.6, with no stabilization, is going to require a tripod, or a LOT of light to get any keepers.

If you want the Nikon VR, keep an eye out for sales. It was on sale for under $400 this time last year, and I think it was also on sale about a week ago. I bought mine used for $375, and sold it for the same price- a good used one is the way to go, IMO. It was like a free 2 year lens rental.

[RLucas]

I love my VR. You can get one used for about $400.00 or so. I have seen them as low as $350.00 if you shop around. I have heard of focus hunt issues with it, but I haven't had any problems as of yet. It's pretty sharp too! Especially at the lower tele end.
Here is an example shot on my D40 at 135mm

[Ben Lee]

For me it would have to be the Nikon 70-300 VR hands down, but the $450 Tamron 70-300 is a close second.

Some people are saying that Tamron have finally caught up with the big boys technology wise (specifically vibration reduction or vibration compensation as Tamron call it) and produced a lens that is as good if not better than the Nikon version.

At the end of the day it probably comes down to brand allegiance (if any).

[Black blowfish]

I have just got the Tamron lens, and I must say its a nice bit of kit.

I have only been snapping now for a couple of months, so I am by no means "well versed"
in the world of gear.

There is a shot I took with the Tamron, of the moon in the OTHER - SYS section of the forum.
That was taken on its first outing.

We also took it out to a local deer park, couldnt really get into using AF mode, it took a bit to long to settle its self down. its also a bit loud. (Small gripe I know)

At full zoom things do go a little "grainy" though.
Also you may need a tripod, I dont know if it has a VR function, but my D3000 picks up any wobble at long zoom.

not really started playing with the macro function yet, (taken 3 shots) but from what i have seen they look crisp and sharp.

Payed £162 for the lens, so all in all, money well spent.

[wisena]

i've been told that lenses which has a very big gap between its minimum and maximum focal length are usually not a good ones ( Pleaseee CMIIW, i'm a noob )

some say you should've buy some lens that have smaller gap, like for example 18-55mm, 55-110mm, 110-200mm, or anything...

please CMIIW guys