70-300 VR test @ 300mm

Started May 24, 2009 | Discussions thread
D Knisely
Senior MemberPosts: 1,652
Like?
Re: 70-300 VR vs 80-200 vs 80-400 lens
In reply to Robert Murphy, May 25, 2009

Note that the 70-300VR is much sharper at the long end for the 12 Mpixel FX models (D700, D3) than for the DX models because the pixel density is less than for the 12 Mpixel DX models (D90, D300, D5000, D2x, etc.). Don't draw any conclusions from the tests in this thread.

You'll find that the 70-300VR stands up well (for IQ) against the 70-200f/2.8 and 80-200f/2.8 models, although obviously it is not a pro f/2.8 lens. For the price, you basically can't go wrong. Even if you decide to get a 70/80-200f/2.8 lens later, the 70-300VR still makes a fantastic walk-around lens that is much lighter. The excellent high-ISO capabilities of the D700/D3 make up for the deficiencies of having an f/5.6 lens to some extent, too.

On DX, the 70-300VR is not satisfactorily sharp beyond about 220mm for my purposes, and I never use it at the long end. On FX, I'll use it all the way out to 300mm.

For me, the biggest drawbacks of the 70-300VR are: 1) lack of normal 77mm filter size, and 2) lack of a tripod collar (at least as an option).

Doug

Robert Murphy wrote:

-- hide signature --

I recently bought a Nikon D700. I have purchased the 12-24 f2.8, and
the 24-70 f2.8 lenses. I am trying to decide about a longer range
zoom. I have been looking at the 70-200 f2.8VR, the 80-200 f2.8, and
the 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR lenses. I am interested in outdoor
photography, taking pictures of grandkids, and combine hiking with
shooting. Which of these lenses would be best for me and why?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow