Personally, I'd go for the VR version if you can spend a little more. It's excellent for the price. I don't think they made a non-VR AF-S version, though. Anyone know?
I experimented with sub 2.8 lenses in the past.and could not stand the floating F stop as you zoom.
Try a TCE14 or so on the f2.8 70-200 that way you at least Get the constant f4
I just looked at some Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm F/2.8 II VR G ED Lenses on ebay, I don't think I can afford one of those they are well over a thousand dollars. If i'm lucky I might be able to score a 70-300 for about $360 if I don't get caught up in the bidding frenzy.
MichaelUribe wrote:
I experimented with sub 2.8 lenses in the past.and could not stand the floating F stop as you zoom.
Try a TCE14 or so on the f2.8 70-200 that way you at least Get the constant f4
MichaelUribe wrote:
I experimented with sub 2.8 lenses in the past.and could not stand the floating F stop as you zoom.
Try a TCE14 or so on the f2.8 70-200 that way you at least Get the constant f4
I have the 70-300mm ED model of this lens and I am very happy with it. A lot of people say it is not sharp, but I have taken pictures of tree branches at 300mm and they look pretty good to me, Supposedly the VR version is sharper, but more expensive. I Think I paid $ 200 or so for my version.
The tamron 70-300 VC is 350 new after rebate. In my limited experience with the Nikon, I found it to be slightly less sharp and a fair amount less contrasty at 300/5.6 than the Tamron.
I'm sure others have their opinions about the merits of these two lenses, but I love the flexibility of the zoom range and the Tamron was the right price for me. The build, IQ, and VC are all surprisingly good for such an inexpensive lens.
get the VR version...... and surprisingly, I found my copy sharper on FX than DX.... but that could have just been me. I ended up selling it, as I got the 200-400 shortly after.
