Anyone rate the Nikor 70mm-300mm

[westy79]

Looking for a longish zoom lens to partner my 18-55 kit lens. Really like the look of the Nikor 55-200vr but i may regret missing out on the extra 100mm.
Hoping to shoot some speedway/motocross/moto GP next year. Im also eager to try some moon shots.

[K1W1]

The VR version is a very good lens for the money and many experienced photographers use it as a lightweight good light walk around lens.
Obviously it has limitations in low light.
The two non VR versions are not worth considering.

[philwojo]

I own the 70-300mm VR and have loved every second of it. I am just a beginner and can't really speak in to all the aspects of it like some other people on here might, but other than the issue of it not being a low light lens it does a wonderful job.

Phil W.

[RichNY]

The VR version is a very good lens for the money and many experienced photographers use it as a lightweight good light walk around lens.
Obviously it has limitations in low light.
The two non VR versions are not worth considering.

Completely agree.

[shshsh]

It's a great lens, and surprisingly enough, it's even great for portraits despite only having f/4.5-5.6:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/huha/36...57620582719343
Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6 @ 250 mm, f/5.6

Direct comparison with the Sigma Macro 150 f/2.8:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/huha/36...7620582719343/
Sigma 150 Macro f/2.8 @ f/3.0

I'd buy the 70-300 VR again any time. And let's not forget that it's relatively lightweight for what it does -- compare with the 70-200 VR f/2.8!

[Prospero]

I agree with the others, the 70-300VR is a great lens.

The autofocus is fast, it's sharp, the VR is great, the colours and contrast excellent, excellent reach, nice bokeh... all in all I'm very happy with the lens.

I've heard that it gets softer at 300mm, but I personally haven't noticed it. Perhaps it's because I only have 6 megapixels or because I'm not that critical, but I think even at 300mm it's still excellent.

I would definetly get it over the 55-200. Not only for the extra reach, but I've heard the autofocus is also a bit faster. Since you mention wanting to do shots of the moon, I guess the extra reach will be more than welcome.

[shshsh]

Since you mention wanting to do shots of the moon, I guess the extra reach will be more than welcome.

Right...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/huha/40...n/photostream/

That's a crop (and a lazy casual snapshot, too), but on a DX camera this will be very much what you will get straight out of the camera.

[jeff5897]

Nikon 70-300 VR is a very good lens, you will not regret to buy it.

you can review the photos taken by 70-300 by download the original size photos here.

http://english.sellpower.net/modules..._mm2=&B1=Query

[benp]

I've used both a bit, and would make the following points:
The 55-200 is way better value for money if photo quality is your main concern
But focus is much faster on the 70-300 (plus you can tweak it manually and it has a distance gauge)
I think the VR is a little better on the 70-300 - say 2-3 stops vs 1-2 - but I haven't quantified that properly and it may be my imagination trying to justify my purchase
The extra reach isn't as big a deal as you'd think, but it is nice
Both lenses are very sharp up to 200mm, where the 70-300 starts to soften a bit. But it's still perfectly usable at 300
You get some vignetting with the 55-200
The 70-300 feels more solidly built, which might be because it weighs (roughly) a ton
I'm guessing the 70-300 would hold its value a bit better than the 55-200, but maybe someone who knows better would like to comment
Maybe irrelevant for you, but have you looked at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8? I haven't used this lens but it gets OK reviews and is not so very much more expensive than the 70-300 VR...

[jcon]

In my opinion, the 70-300VR is the best in its class for the price. It cant be beat.