corposant wrote:
It's a halfway decent landscape lens too. I am hopeful someday we'll see a 70-200 f/4 VR - till then, this cheapo lens is worth keeping!
That it is! Funny, I have no interest in a possible 70-200 f4 VR. Shot all the Canon versions and
and found it too light on a pro body. I'll continue to suffer luggin' around BOTH 70-200 f2.8's
DontShoot wrote:
All great shots, Will.
Thinking about getting this lens again. Cheap but awesome optics.
Appreciate it, Joseph...you can't go wrong, especially at current pricing eh?!
Will... I've always admired the results you can get with this lens, and no doubt you have a great copy of it too. Absolutely first rate images! I'm not as enamored with my copy for whatever reason... maybe I just need to spend some more time with it.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Agree, it certainly is nice to have the 200-300 range covered.
I've wondered about this lens, and as my 55-200 VR is currently acting up, I'm giving new thought to repair (warranty, though perhaps I'll have problems with that ...), 55-300, et cetera. In these fine photos, though, it seems the 55-200 would've also done the job, or could it? --the range fits. (And one of the things that has bothered me about much talk of the 70-300 is some lessening of praise for >200mm part of its range.) The size difference seems not insignificant (I sometimes cycle w/the 55-200 on a D40).
drofnad wrote:
I've wondered about this lens, and as my 55-200 VR is currently acting up, I'm giving new thought to repair (warranty, though perhaps I'll have problems with that ...), 55-300, et cetera. In these fine photos, though, it seems the 55-200 would've also done the job, or could it? --the range fits. (And one of the things that has bothered me about much talk of the 70-300 is some lessening of praise for >200mm part of its range.) The size difference seems not insignificant (I sometimes cycle w/the 55-200 on a D40).
-drofnad
I think the talk of the lower performance in the 200-300 range is really relative. Really it's great up to ~250mm then noticeably drops off in resolution.
That being said it's totally usable (as shown by my Steller's Jay images) and really the lack of sharpness relative to other lenses only shows up at 100% viewing. I use it all the time at 300mm, even on my D300 and I get very good images. Many times I need to up the USM a bit to help compensate, but it's not bad at all.
My only real issue with this lens is the copy variation. I had to go through 3 lenses to get a satisfactory one. First was de-centered (but very sharp in the center), the second was just not as sharp as the first (though centered well) and had some VR issues, and the third was OK - not quite as sharp as the first and pretty well centered. I also tried a fourth version that was a store sample and it was the least sharp of them all.
So, just purchase one from a reputable vendor with a good return/warranty policy.
camerapapi wrote:
Great shots Will, perhaps slightly low in contrast but otherwise excellent shots.
I guess you came to your senses on this lens after you sold me one!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Thanks, William...I've had a few pass thru my hands This was my Daughter's
and I've been giving it some attention of late.
dj dunzie wrote:
Will... I've always admired the results you can get with this lens, and no doubt you have a great copy of it too. Absolutely first rate images! I'm not as enamored with my copy for whatever reason... maybe I just need to spend some more time with it.
Thanks, DJ....I've had a few of these and all have been really good copies. Lucky I guess.
Is it the sharpest tool in the shed . . . . not at 300mm, but it's more than adequate for sure and you can't beat the size and weight. It's fantastic from 70-200mm - I don't hesitate to use it there at all.
Here's a point and shoot example - we were playing in the snow down at Mt. Rainier and this Steller's Jay shows up on a branch not too far away. I quickly threw the 70-300VR on my D700 and let the camera do it's work. Got quite a few good ones like this.
Definitely worth the $$. I just had to go through 3 copies to find a decent one . . .
Now if Nikon made a 70-300/4VR I'd be in heaven!
John ...Show more →
Nice Jay, John...thanks for bolstering the thread with some add'l samples. I've had 3 that were tack sharp at 300,
not wide open...mind you...but by f7.1 - f8 Adequate SS and solid long lens technique key to success, especially on DX.
Methinks not many adopters have much experience handholding 450mm, eh?!
Great shot Will...I love how they line up.
You say this makes a good travel lens, why not the 70-200 f2.8? Is the 70-300 that much smaller and lighter?
leighton w wrote:
Great shot Will...I love how they line up.
You say this makes a good travel lens, why not the 70-200 f2.8? Is the 70-300 that much smaller and lighter?
Thanks, Leighton. Yessir...~2/3's the size/weight and 1/4th or 1/5th the cost (used)
I have both 70-200 f2.8 VR's for paid gigs, this is a throw in the truck lens for me. Love it!
This was my Daughter's