Steve'sDigicams

PatoG · Dec 3, 2007, 1:33 AM

Hi there everyone,

I want to get telephoto lens (up to 300mm) for my D80. Is the 70-300mm vr by Nikon (price is around $450-500) a good choice? I haven't seen any others up close. I've heard there's a nice one by Sigma but it isn't image stabalized.

Can anyone advise me about the Nikon one or any alternative?

Much appreciate your time!

Thanks,

PatoG

JimC · Dec 3, 2007, 10:10 AM

Some of the reviews are less than sterling from a CA (Chromatic Aberrations) perspective if that bothers you. See this one:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56vr/index.htm

I'd let members know what your budget is, what you plan on shooting, and in what conditions for better recommendations on any alternatives.

NHL · Dec 3, 2007, 2:39 PM

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is more likely the better one, since this is one of the sharpest lens in Sigma line-up, but it also costs twice as much...

Why?
For one CA is much better controlled
Two - It's a stop faster at 300mm hence more optical glass (that's what you pay for) and larger lens
-> Also if you do shoot action or sports it's the faster f-stop that help and not the image stabilization

PatoG · Dec 3, 2007, 4:43 PM

H NHL,

took a look at the specs of the Sigma. I think you're totally right in advising me in that direction. It's the price point that quashes the deal. I just can't go that high.

Still, I haven't made up my mind yet . . . . . .

Thanks so much

PatoG · Dec 3, 2007, 4:50 PM

Hi JimC,

thanks for the quick reply. sports is not my thing, I lean more towards nature, birds, whales and all that.

My budget can't let me go beyond $600, so the Sigma is out for the moment.

Are there any other manufacturers of these lenses that would be more in my price range? Or would they be getting into el cheapo quality?

ron519098 · Dec 5, 2007, 5:20 AM

You might be able to get hold of a Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6Gfor very little. I think they're actually discontinued now but still seem to be around at retailers. It is a very cheap lens but as long as you know its limitations its a bit of a bargain.

Ken Rockwell thinks highly of it. (Can't say I'm a fan of his but occasionally he does make sense).

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

PatoG · Dec 6, 2007, 11:43 AM

Hi Ron,

Thanx so much for the tip! I'll give his site a look.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Dec 3, 2007, 1:33 AM	#1
PatoG Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 45	Hi there everyone, I want to get telephoto lens (up to 300mm) for my D80. Is the 70-300mm vr by Nikon (price is around $450-500) a good choice? I haven't seen any others up close. I've heard there's a nice one by Sigma but it isn't image stabalized. Can anyone advise me about the Nikon one or any alternative? Much appreciate your time! Thanks, PatoG

Dec 3, 2007, 10:10 AM	#2
JimC Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Savannah, GA (USA) Posts: 22,378	Some of the reviews are less than sterling from a CA (Chromatic Aberrations) perspective if that bothers you. See this one: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56vr/index.htm I'd let members know what your budget is, what you plan on shooting, and in what conditions for better recommendations on any alternatives.

Dec 3, 2007, 2:39 PM	#3
NHL Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333 Posts: 11,599	The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is more likely the better one, since this is one of the sharpest lens in Sigma line-up, but it also costs twice as much... Why? For one CA is much better controlled Two - It's a stop faster at 300mm hence more optical glass (that's what you pay for) and larger lens -> Also if you do shoot action or sports it's the faster f-stop that help and not the image stabilization

Dec 3, 2007, 4:43 PM	#4
PatoG Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 45	H NHL, took a look at the specs of the Sigma. I think you're totally right in advising me in that direction. It's the price point that quashes the deal. I just can't go that high. Still, I haven't made up my mind yet . . . . . . Thanks so much

Dec 3, 2007, 4:50 PM	#5
PatoG Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 45	Hi JimC, thanks for the quick reply. sports is not my thing, I lean more towards nature, birds, whales and all that. My budget can't let me go beyond $600, so the Sigma is out for the moment. Are there any other manufacturers of these lenses that would be more in my price range? Or would they be getting into el cheapo quality?

Dec 5, 2007, 5:20 AM	#6
ron519098 Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 96	You might be able to get hold of a Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6Gfor very little. I think they're actually discontinued now but still seem to be around at retailers. It is a very cheap lens but as long as you know its limitations its a bit of a bargain. Ken Rockwell thinks highly of it. (Can't say I'm a fan of his but occasionally he does make sense). http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

Dec 6, 2007, 11:43 AM	#7
PatoG Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 45	Hi Ron, Thanx so much for the tip! I'll give his site a look.