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

[matt shepherd]

hey all just seeing if any one on here has got any experience with this lens. I would be using it for motor sport , surfing and wildlife. I would love to go a faster lens but just cant afford it. Hopefully this lens is a winner

[I @ M]

There are a few members on here with that lens Matt, I saw a thread with some pics from Taronga zoo taken with it today or yesterday on here.
Everything I have seen or heard about the lens has been positive, consistently good quality images, no common problems reported all over the net and a pretty reasonable price.

[I @ M]

I found that thread Matt, it is the one by ColdBlood on his day at the zoo with his new lens.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=60019

[matt shepherd]

cheers for the link. the shots look great he did a really good job.

[Wayne]

While generally it is a great lens given it's zoom range, my copy tends to hunt quite a bit when right out at 300mm in anything but the best quality light, it happens on both my bodies (D3/D700) and pulling it back to about 280mm seems to cure most of it.

In low light, it is slow to find focus. I actually never use it anymore, and prefer to use the 70-200/2.8 with 1.4TC to give about the same length, and while that combo is only slightly faster aperture wise, it is alot more certain when it locks focus.

In good light, focus is quick and sharp, producing pleasing images if all else is in order with camera settings. for things like surfing, wildlife and motorsport you will need to get close to the subject to fill a frame on FX. Certainly for the $550 odd they cost, they are a great lens.

[matt shepherd]

thanks for the heads up. I do expect it to be a little slow. I will be using it on a d90 so it should be ok I think length wise

[farmer_rob]

I have one, and I think it is a great lens and great value for money. There are more expensive ones out there that are better, but you pay more (and I can't afford them.) However, it is not a good low-light lens IMO - the f5.6 at 300mm is pretty limiting, even with VR.

When focussed, I find it sharp and I am very happy with the results. (If you rely on a tripod for low-light shots, make sure it is a good one. I can see clear shutter vibration with my old, cheap tripod.)

I can't comment on focus speed and hunting issues as I hate the autofocus on the d40x and blame that for *all* my focus problems .

BTW, don't get the non-VR version (very cheap) - the 'net suggests considerable problems with it.

[N*A*M]

for your intention of shooting "motorsport, surfing and wildlife", i think you will be disappointed. especially on a d90 with its weaker AF module and poorer high iso capability. you will want to get a 80-200 or 70-200 and get in close, or a 300/4.

[Wayne]

I would even say a 300/4 is not going to be much chop, afterall, it's only 1 stop faster than the 70-300VR @300mm.

The 70/80-200/2.8s without TC will will be very limiting for the intended use. If a 300 prime is what you were to go for it would be best to get a 300/2.8VR, but granted, it will cost 3x the other options, and then when you start looking at $5K territory, the 200-400/4VR is well worth a look too.

[matt shepherd]

Thanks for your honesty. I do agree that the 300/2.8 would be allot better but going from $650 to $5000 is a big jump and just not going to happen at the moment, I wish I could. So I might have a go at getting some results from the 70-300vr in the right lighting conditions. I guess it is better to have a go with a lens that is affordable than not to have a go at all.

Does anyone know of places that you could hire lenses to try them out before purchasing. That would be great.

[Wayne]

Send me a $600 deposit + postage both ways and you can borrow mine for a few weeks, $600 refundable upon return of my lens in same condition as you received it.

[matt shepherd]

thanks wayne that is very generous of you. I my take you up on your offer. just want to do some more research first.

[N*A*M]

DWI have them for $570 odd

was considering getting one for travel

[matt shepherd]

Ok I went in two teds cameras today to see if I could use a 70-300vr but they didn't have any in stock. But I did try a Sigma APO 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM. I thought it was quite good for the price but I have very limited experience with this sort of photography. so maybe some of you have this lens and can give me your thoughts.

cheers

[Wayne]

Search Bigma and you will get lots of reviews, many mixed. I have considered it in the past, but feel the IQ from it is not all that great, so I am sticking to Nikkor lenses.

[phototyke]

I would even say a 300/4 is not going to be much chop, afterall, it's only 1 stop faster than the 70-300VR @300mm.

300/4 is in a different league IQ wise than the 70-300 @300mm! and one stop difference effectively doubles the shutter speed!

[zollo]

agree the 300/4 does have chops