Would it be worth it......

photographyman

photographyman

Messages
298
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
At the moment i shoot sports, mainly rugby and motorcross. I use the basic nikon 55 - 200 vr lens, i am saving for a 70 - 200 2.8, but it may take some time.

My question is;

Would it be worth buying nikon 70-300 afd ED just to get me the extra 100mm and possible better IQ, i dont wanna spend on the AFS version as i think it is overpriced and would eat some of my budget.

Any advice welcome and thanks all.
 
photographyman said:
At the moment i shoot sports, mainly rugby and motorcross. I use the basic nikon 55 - 200 vr lens, i am saving for a 70 - 200 2.8, but it may take some time.

My question is;

Would it be worth buying nikon 70-300 afd ED just to get me the extra 100mm and possible better IQ, i dont wanna spend on the AFS version as i think it is overpriced and would eat some of my budget.

Any advice welcome and thanks all.
Click to expand...

The af-d version is not as good as your 55-200 the vr 70-300 is excellent but won't be great in low light.
 
You could buy a sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for the price of the 70-300 vr and it would be a lot better than your current lens.
Don't buy any other Nikon 70-300 they are rubbish.
 
I'm surprised that you said that Tom. I found my old 70-300mm vr to be superb! I've always considered it to be really good value for what it costs.
Maybe I just had a good example.

Kev.
 
kevshore said:
I'm surprised that you said that Tom. I found my old 70-300mm vr to be superb! I've always considered it to be really good value for what it costs.
Maybe I just had a good example.

Kev.
Click to expand...

I mean the VR is great, but the non VR ones are rubbish.
The op seemed to be talking about the cheap G version rather than the VR. However he also mentions he wants a 70-200 2.8, so for the the price s 70-300 VR is, he could just skip it and go straight to a sigma 70-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top