I've read the reviews, did a search, but still looking for some opinions on this lens.
In general, I'm not a "long lens" shooter. I have an 80-200 f/2.8 which I rarely use. But, I'm going to Costa Rica next month, where one of the high lights of the trip will be the birds and wildlife. I'm considering getting a 70-300VR as a light weight and longer alternative to my 80-200, which is just so heavy (I'm a little girl, lol).
But. I'm a lens snob. I'll admit it. I love fast lenses. Usually when I travel, I only bring primes (20, 35 & 85), so I don't mind a little inconvenience if it means getting better quality shots. I had the 70-300D at one point, but thought it was pretty awful.
Would I be disappointed in the 70-300? Should I just suck it up and carry around the 80-200? I'm not expecting the best light, especially in places like the cloud forest where it could get pretty dark. I'm not a wildlife shooter, so I'm not expecting to get award winning photos, but I would like to be able to get decent photos.
Edited by RebeccaVT on Feb 18, 2008 at 05:26 AM GMT
What you've described here Rebecca is exactly why so many people like the 70-300VR. And please don't feel it's just VR added to your old 70-300... it's a complete revamp.
I have a 70-200VR, a 100-300mm f4 EX Sigma and a 300mm f4 AF-S, and I STILL figured the 70-300VR was a worthwhile purchase for the exact reason you said there... you want the reach for a purpose but don't want to carry the bigger f2.8 zoom.
I urge you to go try out a copy at the nearest reputable dealer and fire a few test shots. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the image quality even wide open, and the VR system on this lens is as good as the one on the 18-200VR, which is to say excellent. It's not a huge heavy lens but has such an excellent focal range that I just had to bite it and buy one. I don't regret it at all... great lens for the money and size.
mrimpossible wrote:
I'm a lens snob too but the 70-300VR is very good and I have to be in a particularly snobbish mood to be bothered lugging the 70-200
ROFL! That's a great way of putting it. You guys have convinced me
Thanks for posting this Rebecca. I have just ordered the 70-300 VR to use along with my 105mm VR as my D3 walk-about lenses. I've read some negatives, and the low price made me wonder. Looks like I made the right decision though.
I fit the 'lens snob' category too, and I'm tired of packing my D3 / 300mm 2.8 / 2xTC / Ballhead / SideKick on a 70's vintage heavy duty tripod around on my shoulder (total weight 28 pounds). Not a great travel combination either
And thanks Francisco for the Dave Black link. He's a straight shooter (no pun intended), I respect his opinion.
Have a wonderful trip Rebecca, and be sure to give an update and share your images - Bob
RebeccaVT wrote:
wow! Those are very, very impressive! Thank you so much for the examples!
thanks... just kidding about the 70-300VR, it's one of my favorite lenses. In fact: it might as wel be my best bang for buck lens. And it had to compete with a lot of lenses i have in the same range.
RebeccaVT wrote:
I've read the reviews, did a search, but still looking for some opinions on this lens.
In general, I'm not a "long lens" shooter. I have an 80-200 f/2.8 which I rarely use. But, I'm going to Costa Rica next month, where one of the high lights of the trip will be the birds and wildlife. I'm considering getting a 70-300VR as a light weight and longer alternative to my 80-200, which is just so heavy (I'm a little girl, lol).
But. I'm a lens snob. I'll admit it. I love fast lenses. Usually when I travel, I only bring primes (20, 35 & 85), so I don't mind a little inconvenience if it means getting better quality shots. I had the 70-300D at one point, but thought it was pretty awful.
Would I be disappointed in the 70-300? Should I just suck it up and carry around the 80-200? I'm not expecting the best light, especially in places like the cloud forest where it could get pretty dark. I'm not a wildlife shooter, so I'm not expecting to get award winning photos, but I would like to be able to get decent photos.
Hello Rebecca, I just got back from Costa Rica and I brought my D300 with 18-200Vr and a 50mm 1.18 - I found I was shooting at 70 mm plus most of the time especially when I went on the river and train tour.
Edited by RebeccaVT on Feb 18, 2008 at 05:26 AM GMT
Great stuff Ray... love the banana shot too... if that were a shot of all the Nikon forum members, you and Carlos would have to be the red and blue ones... but we love ya!
Yo dude....you need to sharpen those up a bit....kind of lacking in the resolution department............oh....oops....I forgot to put my glasses on.........oh MAN.....thats a LOT better now......yeah....now THAT"S what I'm talking about.....colors that POP and look at the fur on those critters..........nicely done.......now if I can figure out how to do that with my copy this Spring I'm all set.
RebeccaVT wrote:
wow! Those are very, very impressive! Thank you so much for the examples!
Uh, Rebecca - just be advised that Raymond gets better shots with a coke bottle and a pinhole digital camera than most of us do with the finest gear!
Seriously though, I've been giving that same lens some thought too. It just isn't the first thing on my list as the "lens snob" gear comes first! 14-24 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8 VR, 400 f/2.8 VR - you know, average everyday hobby gear. I just wish I could actually afford all that!
