Nikkor AF 70-300 f4-5.6G

[diediealsomustdive]

yes !

:thumbsup:for you brother (or sister, whatever)

i only have one lens... the cult 55-200mm f4-5.6 NON VR !

one lens to rule them all :kiss:

I don't wear skirt, and I am straight, if that's what you meant.

I have 2 VR lenses, AFS 18-105mm VR and AFS 105mm Micro Nikkor VR, among the non-VR lenses. My 70-300 is the ED version. Had the G version for my son until he broke my S2Pro, bought him a D60 and sold the G version.

So I spoke about the ED and G lenses from experience. G lens ok, not great. ED good enough.

VR usually set to off.

Having said that, you something a bit wider. If budget problem 18-55, selling like $100 in B&S. I have that too (my avatar shot with 18-55 the original).

 

[kervin13]

ok thx...
18-55?? it is a dx lens, isn't it??
i already have the 24-70, which is similar with it..
thx anyway...

 

[Blur Shadow]

VR usually set to off.

I'm curious. Why do you do so? I mean, it's definitely fine if the shutter speed is fast enough. Nonetheless, do you shoot mostly with VR off? I mean, let's say you're shooting at 105mm, and with your desired aperture and ISO settings, you are getting 1/60s. Do you proceed with VR off? If so, what benefit do you hope to achieve?

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I'm curious. Why do you do so? I mean, it's definitely fine if the shutter speed is fast enough. Nonetheless, do you shoot mostly with VR off? I mean, let's say you're shooting at 105mm, and with your desired aperture and ISO settings, you are getting 1/60s. Do you proceed with VR off? If so, what benefit do you hope to achieve?

I have successfully shot at 1/15 with 105mm. No reason to rely on VR, is there?

Ok at 1/15 it is 50:50, 1/30 it is 70:30, 1/60 it is 100% nailing the shot. ;p

Breathing technique, hand held technique, the old school... or maybe just old?:bsmilie:

I guess it is the same reason why I keep ADL off as well... maybe just stubborn?

OK, with the 18-105 I will switch on VR now and then, but with the micro nikkor it is off all times. VR doesn't work in macro range.

 

[Blur Shadow]

I see. But would you not agree that turning VR on will improve your chances, especially when shooting at 1/30s or longer?

 

[yeekhai]

noob question : is there any difference in term of details captured using 70-200 f2.8 (expensive lens) at 200 mm focal length compare with 70-300 VR (cheaper) at 300mm focal length. i may be able to fill the frame using 70-300, but detail wise? of coure need to crop picture taken with the 70-200.

 

[erictan8888]

you cannot compare a professional lens with the 70-300mm...
even with a 1.4TC, the 70-200mm is sharper, has more details then the 70-300mm...
but of course, you pay so much less for the 70-300mm...

if situation allows for it, when you stop down to about f8 to f10 for 70-300mm... then it is very sharp too...

 

[alanteo79]

I don't think it's wise to buy this lens. I sold mine because it doesn't meet my requirements most of the time.

Anyway I think u can get a second hand one for ard $100.. maybe u should test it out before seriously buying it.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

ok thx...
18-55?? it is a dx lens, isn't it??
i already have the 24-70, which is similar with it..
thx anyway...

Sorry got side-tracked with conversation with the other poster, the guy with only 1 lens 55-200.

:sweat::lovegrin:

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I see. But would you not agree that turning VR on will improve your chances, especially when shooting at 1/30s or longer?

OT liao.

I agree with improving chances, but want to say that VR is no excuse for poor technique, and the VR thingy in the 105 micro bothers me.

Yes it improves chances.:lovegrin:

 

[kervin13]

ok.. anyway will the tamron AF 70-300 f4-5.6 Di LD Macro or Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DG Macro better compared to nikkor 70-300 NO VR??
thx guys for the inputs..

 

[timlim]

kervin13:

You are indeed lucky to have your current set-up sponsored by your parents. At the same time you should be congratulated on your desire to spend within your own means.

A lot of the discussion has centred on the quality of the various alternative lenses. I'd like to suggest looking purely at the economics of the decision, and recommend you get a used 70-300G first.

This will basically allow you to find out for yourself how useful this range is for you. If you find this range important enough, and decide that this lens is not good enough for your needs/wants, you can always look to upgrade in the future (when you may also have more $).

The great thing about this lens is the price - a used copy costs little as $130 in CS BnS. This amount is less than the depreciation that occurs when you walk out of the shop with a brand new 70-200 2.8 VR!

If at the end of the day you don't like the 70-300G and want to upgrade, you should be able to sell it off at very close to what you bought it for. In return for minimal $ risk, you'll have a better idea of whether you need this tele range, and you'll also be in a better position to decide on your next purchase.

Just my 2 cents worth, hope you and the other posters don't mind...

 

[kervin13]

that is exactly what i am thinking, thx for ur input anyway..
Due to my condition now, i could only afford cheap lens lower than $300, so the 70-300g, the tamron or sigma with the same range is affordable..
Within these three options, which one will u guys recommend??
i do extremely appreciate for all of ur reply.. thx

 

[diediealsomustdive]

No offence meant, but personally I'll say forget 3rd party unless the original is really out-of-reach (I have a Sigma 10-20 and a Tokina 400, that's it), or not compatible for some reason (like Nikon TC have limited compatibility).

Original also holds value better.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

yes !

:thumbsup:for you brother (or sister, whatever)

i only have one lens... the cult 55-200mm f4-5.6 NON VR !

one lens to rule them all :kiss:

erm...why on earth is it a cult lens?!

 

[Daedalus Trent]

No offence meant, but personally I'll say forget 3rd party unless the original is really out-of-reach (I have a Sigma 10-20 and a Tokina 400, that's it), or not compatible for some reason (like Nikon TC have limited compatibility).

Original also holds value better.

Agreed. I'd go for the Nikkor 70-300 since it's easily within your reach. Owned it for a while too, it ain't THAT bad, without the VR and all that. I mean, in the afternoon sun, who needs VR at 1/1000s? :sweat:

 

[Kitto]

Just curious, how come the 70-300 VR version is much more expensive compare to non VR? :think:

 

[mcn]

erm...why on earth is it a cult lens?!

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500501

see post #6

 

[karnage]

I think 3rd party ok leh. The Sigma has closer focusing, which can be very useful, at least for me. The so-called "macro" function of the lens. Anyways, it's just for seeing whether you'll use this range much right?

 

[Daedalus Trent]

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500501

see post #6

ahh...i see