Sold my 70-200 VR (too much weight for arthritic shoulders) and just got my new 70-300 VR.
This was taken off my front porch after a rain shower a little while ago.
300mm at f 5.6, 1/200 sec, iso 800, D200.
I'd say it is pretty sharp wide open at 300.
Agreement?
Kim
Edit. Shooting into the sun. Sun is about 20-30 degrees above lens. Had to shade lens with my hand even with lens hood on.
BioBanker wrote:
But Im buying back the 70-200VR because often I need those stops. Keeping both!
The 70-300VR is an amazing bargain. Stop it down to 8 and look again; its SHARP.
I will be doing the reverse. Had the 70-300 VR and sold it to get the 70-200 VR1, primarily to shoot high school basketball. Found out recently that my kid is out for the season rehabilitating an ankle injury, so I don't need the 70-200 nearly as much.
But I love the 70-200, I just don't want to carry it around all of the time, especially in good light. So I am looking for a 70-300 VR again (kicking myself for selling my mint copy a few weeks ago).
I found that while the 70-300vr I have was good with a D300, when I sold the D300 and got a D700 it REALLY came alive. Very sharp wide open all the way out to 300mm. I sold the 70-200vr I had. If I ever really ran into the bucks I'd get a 70-200 f2.8VRII for sure, but not the older model as on FF it isn't the same animal.
Its a heck of a lens when you consider the alternative is going to be the the $2400 70-200 VR II, if you want the best full frame coverage possible on FX
The fact a $5500 lens is this good is really amazing. I love mine and use it instead of the current 70-200 2.8 VR whenever the light allows it, its every bit as sharp, better coverage, and is a heck of a lot lighter to hike with
Chestnut wrote:
At that price, it BETTER be a damn good 70-300.... :-P
Whoops, I accidentally let Nikon's new pricing structure out of the bag! That new MSRP isn't supposed to go into effect til the next round of price hikes February 2010.
Well buy it now while the price is still good guys, its well worth $550, and maybe even $5500
I agree with the assessment on the 70-300VR. I purchased mine when my HSM motor on my Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM started to act up. I decided I wanted to give the VR a try, so picked one up, and it's quickly turned into one of my favorite lenses.
I am still contemplating the $125 repair to the 70-200 2.8, but I haven't really missed it much since I picked up the 70-300VR.
That is one of the coolest photos I have ever seen. How in the world did you get it?
ConorOHealy wrote:
I agree with the assessment on the 70-300VR. I purchased mine when my HSM motor on my Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM started to act up. I decided I wanted to give the VR a try, so picked one up, and it's quickly turned into one of my favorite lenses.
I am still contemplating the $125 repair to the 70-200 2.8, but I haven't really missed it much since I picked up the 70-300VR.
Eric Schwab wrote:
That is one of the coolest photos I have ever seen. How in the world did you get it?
Thanks. I'm pretty happy with it.
I got it at the Hillsboro Airshow, while shooting from the control Tower. This was the Hornet Demo's first pass, and he made several more passes like this.
codeninja wrote:
My 70-300m was shaper with my old D300 than D700. Still it's pretty sharp, but it was darn sharp on D300.
This is also apparently the case with the 70-200/2.8VR. The Nikons seem geared more for the crops, and lose IQ on the full-frames, which is the exact opposite of the Canons.
I suspect the new 70-200 might change that?
I'm pretty happy with it. 