lens advise - customized

[dimitrz]

Dear experts

I am aware that there are upteen threads on the same topic - however I felt the need to have a customized answer - Sorry the question is a bit long please bear/

I have a Nikon D80 with standard 18-55mm VR lens
And I think it’s time I have a 70-300mm reach in my arsenal.

Areas of interest – Bulk of my photography revolves around landscapes ( which can range from photos in high altitude desert / snow filled mountain regions to waterfalls and rivers to plain desert to lush green plains of India ) followed closely by animals ( as in wildlife ) probably say 20 percent or so depending upon how often I go for safaris and so – off course the occasionally snap shot type photography during outings

Unfortunately my options are limited with regards to my budget (ceiling of $400) though the preferred range is between $ 200 to $ 300

Naturally I love photography but my interests are at achieving great quality amateur photos than great quality professional photos – so even though I want to get the best lens I don’t want to go overboard with an expensive version - if you get the jest of my requirement. I don’t pickup my camera and go out looking for photo opportunity but I do have my camera whenever I am out trekking or on trips.

The 3 closest choices that are available to me are listed below and I would be grateful if you guys could guide me towards the best one in the lot , suited to my needs.

1) AF NIKON 70-300mm f/4-5.6G ZOOM-NIKKOR ( Rs. 6,900.00 / $ 150 ) – I have read kenrockwells report where he has praised this and have mentioned his displeasure with regards to the “ ED “ version.

2) SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO LENS (Rs 14000 / $ 295 ) – cant seems to find any worthwhile review – though the “APO” factor seems to be good kind of “ED” which gives better image quality.


3) TAMRON AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6Di LD MACRO 1:2 LENS ( Rs. 8,350.00 / $ 175 ) - cant seems to find any worthwhile review – though I believe “LD” is equivalent to APO and ED


What surprises me is the fact that both Tamron and Sigma is priced higher to Nikon – does that mean their quality is better – usually we have this saying you get what you pay for?

Naturally I am looking at 70-300mm to get the best reach therefore I would be working in 200-300 range most of the time while using the lens but mostly for landscape or to get closer to dangerous animals during safaris.

Taking sharp photos with high DOF , photos with focus on Infinity , being able to take good sharp photos hand held are some of my requirement.

All of these lens does not have VR – is it that important – I have a tripod and use it most often but we all know that there are occasions when using a tripod is not feasible especially when shooting a wild animal or sports action. Will lack of VR be a big handicap as it seems ?

I am looking at lens which is best suited for this and does not go soft or too slow on me.

One last option though as a last resort would be the

Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Zoom

Which gives VR option though at a price between $ 520 to $ 610
I know the advantage of VR but do I really need to go overdrive at say double or triple the price of the above listed lens just because this has VR

Thanks please help

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

One last option though as a last resort would be the

Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Zoom

Which gives VR option though at a price between $ 520 to $ 610
I know the advantage of VR but do I really need to go overdrive at say double or triple the price of the above listed lens just because this has VR

Thanks please help

The difference between the old 70-300 and 75-300 lenses and the 70-300 VR isn't just Vibration Reduction: the latter is significantly sharper with a better optical design. It's well worth the money, that's for sure.

[dimitrz]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The difference between the old 70-300 and 75-300 lenses and the 70-300 VR isn't just Vibration Reduction: the latter is significantly sharper with a better optical design. It's well worth the money, that's for sure.

True but at 3 times the price ?

[LoveDSLR]

First, there is nothing unique about your request. You are looking for an affordable 70-300 lens of good Image Quality (IQ) without Image stabilization (because you are using a tripod).

Originally Posted by dimitrz

One last option though as a last resort would be the

Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Zoom

Which gives VR option though at a price between $ 520 to $ 610
I know the advantage of VR but do I really need to go overdrive at say double or triple the price of the above listed lens just because this has VR

OsmosisStudios +1

The 70-300 VR is regarded as one of the best buys.

My advice is to start saving for the Nikon 70-300 VR and you don't have to replace it even you get a 70-200 VR later. I have one for my D3.

Originally Posted by dimitrz

I have read kenrockwells report where he has praised this and have mentioned his displeasure with regards to the “ ED “ version.

No comment!!!

Originally Posted by dimitrz

What surprises me is the fact that both Tamron and Sigma is priced higher to Nikon – does that mean their quality is better – usually we have this saying you get what you pay for?

Just because it is a Nikon doesn't mean it is good.

Originally Posted by dimitrz

Unfortunately my options are limited with regards to my budget (ceiling of $400) though the preferred range is between $ 200 to $ 300

The Sigma 70-300 APO should be OK.
.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

True but at 3 times the price ?

You bet your rear lenscap it is!

[dimitrz]

Thanks Guys .... well I have decided to go with the 70-300mm nikkor VR one even though its pushing up my budget way too high

I presume Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED


and

Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED


are same

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

Thanks Guys .... well I have decided to go with the 70-300mm nikkor VR one even though its pushing up my budget way too high

I presume Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED


and

Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED


are same

just depends on who wrote it down. Nikon's official line on it is AF-S NIKKOR 70-300MM F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II

As long as the aperture is a 4.5-5.6 and it has VR, it's the right one.

[dimitrz]

Thanks Osmosis

I decided to go for the Nikkor VR primarily because of the VR. since 50% of my shots would be hand held even if I am tagging a tripod along - so I feel VR might eventually be useful.


I am still skeptical about the quality difference between Nikkor VR and Sigma lens - I am not convinced after reading multiple reviews that Nikkor's IQ is better than Sigma's - but have decided not to take any chance

[kirbinster]

The Nikon 70-300 VR lens is probably the best lens value for the money. It is a great long lens at a relatively low price, and it is light weight. The only negative is that it is not very fast, and in low light the autofocus tends to hunt at times. You can find them used for about $400. I love mine, even though I have several much faster lenses.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by andrewdt

I am looking at a lens on a site Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC ASP IF MACRO (Canon mount) - my problem is that I am battling to find any reviews that match this spec. Sigma IF means internal focusing, and all docs regarding this lens are showing pics of extened body at 70mm so this cannot be the same. Macro a bit of a misleading marketing tool as this is clearly not a macro lens.

IF means Internal Focus, not Internal Focal length. The lens extends for the focal length change but doesnt move externally for focusing. It's true to form.
As for the Macro: Many zoom lenses like these advertise a macro feature: generally it's a 1:2 ratio, which isn't macro, but is close-focus. Not totally misleading, but not entirely accurate either.