Stablemate reqd for Nikon AF-S VR 70-300

spongo

spongo

Messages
69
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
No
I have just picked up my First DSLR and have had my first few days shooting. Yesterday was one of the most inspiring days spent alone in many years.
I chose a used D90 which came with a Tamron 18-200mm Jack of all. My few days with it have already taught me that it's a great lens but ultimately, when in the field, suffers when fully open and unsupported. I began flirting with the idea of VR, and moving to a longer set up of somewhere in the range of 50-400mm vr for longer stuff. A such I was trolling the fleabay in the wee small hours of this morning when I came across an absolutely very well priced , as new condition Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF ED........ In a moment of weakness the inevitable happened. :love:

Now I am wondering whether to keep my Tammy? Will I get significantly better performance in the circa 16-90 range if I choose a lens dedicated to this range, ie, without the top end stretch to 200mm? If I shop the Tammy, the absolute outside of my budget would be £250.
I'm currently looking at:

Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO HSM
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM

Are there any other good options to compliment the Nikon 70-300mm? Any cheap classics that I'm missing? Is vr/os still a must in this shorter range or should I just pocket the (quite considerable) difference?

Thoughts would be greatly appreciated guys 'n gals. :thumbs:
 
Thi Nik 18-70 is the way to go IMO. I have a simlar set up having kept my 70-300 VR when I upgraded from a D40 to D300 (I still love it on the d300). I then did a heap of research to replace the 18-55mm when I sold my D40. It came down to a choice between the £500 sh 17-55 2.8 or the £100 sh 18-70 3.5-4.5 which I went for. I have not been dissapointed and it has lived on my camera since purchase - been very impresed with the sharpness. it does have some distoration at the wide end but nothing out of the ordinary. I'm still saving for the 17-55 but it will be a while away and not sure I will be able to justify the extra for a good while anyway.

Only thing to look out for is a wobbly barrel as some can suffer from that (it's a dual barrel type of zoom).

hope that helps
 
Last edited:
Good on getting the 70-300 Nikkor. It's a very capable performer.

You don't say what your main subjects of interest are, Jon, but a logical addition is the 18-70mm or similar.
Do you need a fast lens in that range. If you are not going to shoot at max aperture it's a luxury. F3.5 will do fine in that case.
 
Last edited:
instead of the 18-70, you could look at the 16-85 which has VR, and provides a certain amount of 'crossover' with the 70-300 (I prefer my lenses to have a bit of crossover).

I've got the 16-85 on my D300s and it's a great 'walkabout' lens, and that extra couple of mm at the wide end comes in handy
 
If you can find a good one, definately the NIkon 18-70! I still have mine from my original kit when it came with a D70s almost 5 years ago now and even used it at a wedding earlier this year when my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 decided to start front focusing horribly. Its an amazingly sharp lens, is a brilliant 'walk about' lens and still has the reputation of one the best 'kit' lenses Nikon ever supplied. Yes, its not as quick in terms of aperture as more expensive offerings, but the focusing is good and accurate, it's sharp and is lightweight enough to carry, heavy enough to confirm its intrinsic quality. :thumbs: IMGHO of course ;)
 
Thanks Chris. I agree, it sounds like a winner for the money. All I can see are good reports about it. I'm just a little cautious of going non vr for what will definitely be my walkabout. Is that how you use yours? If so, hows the long end been hand-held in the field? And how does it do at the long end on portrait?
 
Last edited:
Dougie, starting out, and assuming my preferences stay the same as with my compact, I enjoy wildlife and landscape but real world study and photo-journalism in it's non pap pure form are what really inspire me. I'd like to have a lens that can cope with a bit of hustle and bustle which is the only reason I've not gone to the Nikon 18-70 straight away. I'd rather wait a few weeks and save a few more pennies for a vr version if it's gonna react better on a busy high st or at a sport event. Equally though, I REALLY don't want to spend money frivolously.
 
Sorry Si, one fingered typing is keeping my eyes off the screen at the moment:bonk:
 
And this is the issue at the heart of this post I guess (vr vs non vr on a walkabout that is, not my crap typing).
 
Last edited:
Also, after a quick sprint over to Wikipedia to the photography genres page, what I thought was called 'photo-journalism' is actually called ''documentary' or 'street' photography.
 
spongo said:
Also, after a quick sprint over to Wikipedia to the photography genres page, what I thought was called 'photo-journalism' is actually called ''documentary' or 'street' photography.
Click to expand...

I'm down in Bexhill quite often (in-laws). If you wanted to check out my 16-85 at some point, then just shout. I used to have the 18-70mm, then changed to the 16-85 and love the extra mm's at both ends, and the VR
 
Personally I don't feel the need for Vr at the shorter distances, it could be useful depending on your shooting style. My main subject at the moment is kids (possibly not disimilar to what you describe) and I've never felt I needed VR so far even at the long end. You pay for the VR which I don't value so hence going for the 18-70.
 
the 18-105 kit lens has VR and lots of them are sold on making them a relatively cheap option @ about £130. They work well with the D90 and the 70-300VR as my "lite" kit when I dont want to take a bagfull of primes with me.
 
Yep, another vote for the 18-70. I've had one for around a year and a half now; got it used off ebay. Never had the need to worry about the lack of VR. One small advantage is that it shares the same 67mm filter size as the 70-300VR (as is the 16-85 for that matter too).
Jessops were selling them new for £130 but just had a quick look and they seem to have all gone. Around 85-100 quid on ebay.
 
sticking my oar in, 18-70mm from me too. Had one, sold it and bought an 18-55mm, really regretted it, bought the 18-70mm again :thumbs:
 
I have the 18-70 on my D300 and it compliments the 70-300 perfectly. IQ is good and it focuses well in most situations. The only reason I would upgrade would be for a f2.8 but at present I would be hard pressed to justify that (not that it will stop me though:suspect:).

Nick
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, almost as good iq as the Nikon 17-55 but for around £200 :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

That's what I got for my D90, although it cost more than 200 notes (new).

If I was the OP, I'd be looking to getting something with a large aperture to add to my collection, as it opens up creative possibilities for almost every genre of photography, doing certain things which f/3.5, f/4.5 etc. lenses simply can't do :shrug:!

An f/2.8 zoom, or a 35mm f/1.8 prime and a slower, cheaper zoom would seem to be the only two options to achieve that and the single f/2.8 zoom is the cheaper route.
 
Naboo32 said:
:thumbs:

That's what I got for my D90, although it cost more than 200 notes (new).

If I was the OP, I'd be looking to getting something with a large aperture to add to my collection, as it opens up creative possibilities for almost every genre of photography, doing certain things which f/3.5, f/4.5 etc. lenses simply can't do :shrug:!

An f/2.8 zoom, or a 35mm f/1.8 prime and a slower, cheaper zoom would seem to be the only two options to achieve that and the single f/2.8 zoom is the cheaper route.
Click to expand...

or
18-70 - 90-100
+50mm 1.8 - 70ish
 
On DX, my choice was the 18-70 kit lens that came with my D70 several years ago. Only sold it because the person who bought my D200 needed a lens to get him going and the 18-70 is a Dx only lens so not ideal for the D700. On Fx, I like the 24-70 as a walkaround.
 
NikonSimon said:
instead of the 18-70, you could look at the 16-85 which has VR, and provides a certain amount of 'crossover' with the 70-300 (I prefer my lenses to have a bit of crossover).

I've got the 16-85 on my D300s and it's a great 'walkabout' lens, and that extra couple of mm at the wide end comes in handy
Click to expand...

But the OP did say £250 TOPS and I doubt you'd get one for that price.
 
taz said:
But the OP did say £250 TOPS and I doubt you'd get one for that price.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been trawling fleabay and although it looks like a great lens, its definitely out of my price range at the moment. I think BazEP's suggestion of the 18-70 plus the nifty seems like my most likely route at the moment.

On a slightly sore note, the VR arrived this morning and instead of being the real bargain VR that it seemed, is actually a very expensive NON VR. :bang:
Phoned the seller who said, and I quote verbatim;
"Sorry mate, I didn't know what the letters meant."
Brilliant! Fleabay is a great platform when it works, but a donkey when it doesn't.
Anyway, lens is back in the post with the refund agreed and it just means that I'll have to hang onto the 18-200 Tammy for a little longer than I thought.

I've not seen a single criticism angled at the 18-70 so my non vr fears are allayed somewhat, and the AF 50mm f/1.8 D seems to get great reviews for a very affordable price.
 
For the record, and to conclude this thread, I've just opted for an absolutely pristine 18-70 with a view to picking up a 50mm 1.8d to compliment. I'll keep hold of the Tamron 18-200 to use as a longer option until I can afford something to hold that spot more effectively. Unless things change dramatically in the intervening months, That will be the 70-300 vr. :thumbs:

Done and dusted, Thanks for the input guys n gals. :wave:
 
I'm torn at the moment between getting one from them or plugging away at fleabay for a £50-£60 from a good seller. I think MPB do 6 month warranty on 2nd hand as well. It's great to have them locally as a back-up.
Thanks for the steer on the 16-85 as well Si, if that 70-300 had have been what it said on the label, I might have been able to stretch to it. It does look like the better of the two but I'm very happy with the 18-70.
 
spongo said:
For the record, and to conclude this thread, I've just opted for an absolutely pristine 18-70 with a view to picking up a 50mm 1.8d to compliment. I'll keep hold of the Tamron 18-200 to use as a longer option until I can afford something to hold that spot more effectively. Unless things change dramatically in the intervening months, That will be the 70-300 vr. :thumbs:

Done and dusted, Thanks for the input guys n gals. :wave:
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
spongo said:
I'm torn at the moment between getting one from them or plugging away at fleabay for a £50-£60 from a good seller. I think MPB do 6 month warranty on 2nd hand as well. It's great to have them locally as a back-up.
Thanks for the steer on the 16-85 as well Si, if that 70-300 had have been what it said on the label, I might have been able to stretch to it. It does look like the better of the two but I'm very happy with the 18-70.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd always go for somewhere like MPB over a seller on ebay.

Matt @MPB is very helpful, and has told me they check the optics thoroughly, as well as the cosmetics, so if it says 'Exc++ condition', then you can be pretty safe in the knowledge it's in good nick.

I'm loving mine, and took about 170 shots at the weekend when our two nieces and nephew came to visit.

Takes some getting used to though
 
Yeah, it's being sent today Si. Supposedly immaculate for £81.50 shipped! Now I've got that horrible waiting game to play. I sold the Tamron for £90 to pay for this one. I just thought it pointless to have a lens in my bag that I was going to sell on. I might as well keep things as simple as possible while there's so much to learn. I think I'm gonna go for the 70-300 next as I'm trying to decide between the 50 and the 35 prime. It's only just occurred to me that in DX format, the 50 will present at effectively 75mm. Closer to tele than I had in my mind. You're getting on well with yours then?
 
Yes mate, I really like it. You're right about the crop factor, makes it a 75mm effectively, but that's a nice length for portraits and such like. I may even get a 35mm as well to go with it, but I'm more than happy with the 50mm. Hasn't come off my camera yet, and haven't taken the camera out of B&W from the weekend either! Loving shooting portraits in B&W with this lens at the moment
 
It's nice when a new toy doesn't dissapoint eh! :thumbs:
Up to the attic now to drag down scalextric, airgun etc to sell for new glass.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top