| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/29/2007 09:21:08 PM · #1 |
Hi all.
I´m thinking about an Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR as a 2nd lens.
Ken Rockwell writes about this one being "junk", and not worth having.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
05/29/2007 09:26:17 PM · #2 |
well after some careful thought and consideration I think Ken Rockwell is a fool. ;)
As for the lens, take a look at the gallery section. The lens appears to be able to take a sharp picture with good color detail. It's relatively cheap. I admit I don't own one but it looks attractive enough. |
|
|
|
05/29/2007 09:26:57 PM · #3 |
| I've tried the lens before, and it's ok, although I found it very heavy and cumbersome for practical uses and things like street photography where you might not have a lot of time to frame a shot. That said, the autofocus is sort of slow too. I went for the 18-200 VR which has a great zoom, is fast and is pretty much the perfect size. That lens plus a macro and you would never need another lens. Good luck with your decision. |
|
|
|
05/29/2007 09:42:39 PM · #4 |
I haven't been disappointed with mine. If my Sigma 105mm macro isn't on I have my 70-300mm VR. I'm no pro, but I'd like to think I know crap when I see it. This lens isn't crap to me!
It is heavy, but I don't have anything to compair it to other than my other lenses which by no means fall in the telephoto range. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 07:30:31 AM · #5 |
| You will not be able to gauge a lens' sharpness by the small picture on this site. Check here for a review, PhotoZone. |
|
|
|
06/02/2007 02:37:03 PM · #6 |
I've been pretty happy with mine. Both of these photo's were taken with it. The first one was at 300mm, handheld. I think the detail was still there.
I've also been using it to shoot my son's baseball games, and has been fast enough for autofocus on many plays.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 12:37:11 PM · #7 |
I suppose I´ll go for this one.
Thanks for your help. |
|
|
|
06/03/2007 06:31:13 PM · #8 |
| please disregard what I posted about the 70-300 VR, because I've never actually used it before - I was actually thinking of the 80-400 VR, and I mixed them up. sorry about that. |
|
|
|
06/03/2007 06:55:42 PM · #9 |
| It is a sharp lens, way sharper than the 18-200 that Ken Rockwell raves about I have enjoyed mine a lot and consider it to be a keeper. |
|
|
|
06/03/2007 07:03:25 PM · #10 |
I played with 70-200vr and 70-300vr and this is what I think
70-300vr
- cheap
- fast focus
- looks and feels good.
- not sure about image quality but from what I hear it is not bad.
70-200vr (the one I purchased)
- heavy
- super fast focus
- f2.8
- supersharp at f2.8
If you can afford it stretch for 70-200 f2.8 VR. If you know you can't, get 70-300vr. I also got 2x TC for those times when I need extra reach. However, I rearly use it.
Nick
edit: link //www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=992
Message edited by author 2007-06-03 19:05:07.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 07:06:44 PM · #11 |
| If you're not sure if you want to buy one you can rent it at www.rentglass.com. Rent it for a week as a trial. |
|
|
|
06/03/2007 07:08:52 PM · #12 |
Oh.. yeah my old 70-300ED (non VR) is for sale. Make me an offer if you'd like. It is good if you are on tight bugget.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:52:19 AM EDT.
