Zoom Lens Choices - Expert Advice Needed.


Status
Not open for further replies.

SheepYeo

New Member
Dec 5, 2007
69
0
0
Opposition Stronghold
#1
Howdy Guys

I've been meddling with my Kit lens D80 (18-135mm) for sometime now.
Wish to add a Zoom lens to my arsenal. ;p
However I should say I'm really spoilt for choices as I'm considering the below mentioned Lenses:


Here's the questions:
  1. I'm really tempted with the price of the Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G, however does the VR function really help/affect much? :dunno:
  2. As for the Sigma Counterparts, do they have their version of VR built-in? :think:
  3. How much does the above mentioned Sigma Lenses going for?
  4. Any life-encounters to share with me on above mentioned lenses?

Regards & Advance Thanks :kiss:
 

zzyzx

New Member
Aug 25, 2007
784
0
0
#3
my choice will be Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED too... vibration reduction is like image stabilisation which i find it useful. esp for zoom lense.
 

sunboi80

New Member
Jun 10, 2006
743
0
0
West of SG
#4
I have the 70-300mm VR and i've used the 70-300G before... the VR at 200mm onwards is really helpful unless u have perfect lightings...
get the 70-300 VR if ur budget allows else get the non VR ver, shld be less than 1/2 the price of the VR ver but not easy to handheld at 300mm though...
one thing to note is that the 70-300VR(700++ gms) is quite heavy compared to the non VR ver..

70-300 VR rocks!!... :)
 

SheepYeo

New Member
Dec 5, 2007
69
0
0
Opposition Stronghold
#5
i'm no expert,but i will go for Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
my choice will be Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED too... vibration reduction is like image stabilisation which i find it useful. esp for zoom lense.
Thanks Guys for your opinion! Especially taking your lunch time off to help me with the queries. :heart:

I have the 70-300mm VR and i've used the 70-300G before... the VR at 200mm onwards is really helpful unless u have perfect lightings...
get the 70-300 VR if ur budget allows else get the non VR ver, shld be less than 1/2 the price of the VR ver but not easy to handheld at 300mm though...
one thing to note is that the 70-300VR(700++ gms) is quite heavy compared to the non VR ver..

70-300 VR rocks!!... :)
Hmm... Thanks Sunboi for your opinion as well.
How about the Sigma Counterparts?
 

#6
Nice set of choices you have there!
If you have the money I would definitely recomment the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED. I have the 18-200mm VRII and in my experience the vibration reduction makes an enormous difference, particularly in situations where you don't have an eternity to compose a shot at long focal lengths. This can make big difference where any blur in the image is unacceptable or the shooting conditions don't allow you to use a fast shutter speed; unless you always have a tripod with you, no VR will severely ristrict your handheld shooting options at 300mm. Some of the Sigma lenses have OS (optical stabilisation) but I have no experience with that system so I can't comment on its effectiveness. Hope this helps. :)
 

#7
no expert here..

i'm a poor man.. so suggesting the nikkor 70-300mm G.. =)

costs merely a fraction (let me see.. maybe a sixth?) of the VR version.. it doesn't go well if you have bad light since it's no VR.. but at that price point.. it's something worth considering..
 

Jan 12, 2007
378
0
0
#8
hi. i do own the apo version of the sigma. 70-300. pretty decent lense. i wasnt sure if i really needed the telephoto range yet so i decided to get a relatively cheap one. i was comparing it to the 55-200 vr. and after testing both plus the dude at john 316 telling me that the sigma has better iq than the 55-200 at a cheaper price.

of course the 70-300 nikkor would have better iq than the sigma but its also more expensive. depending on your personal prefrences and what u shoot for, self or paid? u can always upgrade later when u have found and tested your style.

after playing around now for a couple of months im going to upgrade soon to probably a prime telephoto cause that means ultimate sharpness!! hhaahaha
 

dzignous

Deregistered
Aug 10, 2006
143
0
0
#9
The AF on Nikon 70-300 G (non-vr) is way too slow even on a D200 body.
 

sunboi80

New Member
Jun 10, 2006
743
0
0
West of SG
#10
i used to hav the sigma 70-300mm before... the iq of the nikon 70-300mm is definitely better than the sigma ver. but you are right the price difference is 3x more also..
the sigma has a marcro func...(i think at 200-300mm then can activate) quite useful if u like marcos...

if u wan a lens to test if u need the focal length u can get the sigma.. if ur pockets is deep enuff and u can get the nikon ver... VR at more than 200mm really very useful...
 

senray

New Member
Nov 25, 2006
232
0
0
www.picturesque.sg
#11
I would go for the 70-300mm VR.. it's not about having the VR or not although it would be an advantage to have the function. But the Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G is simply too slow in terms of focusing. Don't be fooled because it is affordable, check out both lens and you'll see the difference.
 

geraldkhoo

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2007
2,571
0
36
The Tiny Red Dot
sgstrobist.blogspot.com
#12
Let me throw into the mix here a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. There are 4 versions of this...

1. AF 80-200 f/2.8 (one touch)
2. AF 80-200 f/2.8D (one touch)
3. AF 80-200 f/2.8D (two touch)
4. AFS 80-200 f/2.8D

You can get #1 for $600-$700 2nd hand, #2 for $700-$900 2nd hand, #3 for $900-$1100 2nd hand, and #4... mmmm... just saw one at $2.2K 2nd hand...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom