why is this so cheap?

is that lens a pile of ****?

Do Nikon do two different lens qualities?

Im new to this and an explanation would be helpful
 
jpay said:
is that lens a pile of ****?

Do Nikon do two different lens qualities?

Im new to this and an explanation would be helpful
Click to expand...


There's a big difference between the old 70-300 in your link and the much newer 70-300 VR. It's a cheap lens, but then it should be...
 
It's a cheap Nikon, at the bottom of the range, but it'll probably produce fine results.

In terms of Nikon lenses there is no version of Canon's 'L' range (which is its top-end, really, really good stuff). instead, with Nikon you generally find the f/2.8 lenses to be top-end, pro-spec (24-70mm, 70-200mm etc).

This is a list of Nikon lenses and explains some of the jargon:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/index.htm
 
jpay said:
is that lens a pile of ****?

Do Nikon do two different lens qualities?

Im new to this and an explanation would be helpful
Click to expand...

I'm not a Nikon shooter so wouldn't have an exact idea, but this is a bog standard 70-300mm which most companies make normally is the £150 range. It depends really on what you're using it for? it will be better investing in the Nikon 55-200mm VR if you're after any extra reach from your 18-55mm kit lens.
 
i already have the sigma 70-300 but i was wondering if this would be better, presuming that a nikon lens would be of better build quality than a sigma.

Thanks for the help everyone, things are made so complicated when all i wanna do is enjoy being out there with camera and i
 
The Sigma and that Nikon will be on par with eachother, they are both budget kit lenses. If you want a better 70-300, you need to go for the Nikon 70-300VR. That is a brilliant lens and will vastly outperform the two mentioned previously.
 
I wondered about this lens before I bought my 70-300 VR and I also considered the more expensive 70-300 ED but was advised against spending the extra ( the 70-300ED over the "ordinary" 70-300 I mean) but like you I was confused at the beginning. If you don't want to spend £300 (used) for the VR version, I would go for the £100ish 70-300 over the Sigma I think, but as I haven't used either I suppose that isn't fair.
 
Have never used the 70-300 Nikkor (non VR), but I do have the Sigma 70-300 APO and the Nikkor 70-300 VR. The Sigma can give some pretty good results, especially for its price (£100 or less, in mint nick). But the 70-300 VR is in a different league ;)

(If you're the patient type you can pick up a mint 70-300 VR for around the £250 mark - I did)
 
Used to have a Nikkor 70-300 non VR. It came as the long lens in a 2 lens kit with my first modern SLR several years ago. The VR version is way better - worth all the extra it costs IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top