Opinions on 70-300 4.5VR+

i'm looking for a telephoto lens for wildlife and an eventual safari. Ideally would like the 200-400 but the cost is prohibitive considering the amount od use it would get. What about the above lens-anyone have one?

Is it too soft/slow? Any problems using it with a 2X teleconvertor?

Thanks for any opinions.

I've owned this lens for about 9 months and I'm very happy with it. It isn't the sharpest lens I own but, at least for me, the sharpness is more than adequate. My basic topside kit now is the 17-35 2.8, 70-300 4.5VR and a 60 macro. I think it's a very good value. Of coarse if money was no object I'd use the 70-200 2.8 VR.

Check to see if you can still use the lens in AF with a tele-converter fitted.

Cheers

James

mtnman, for the same purpose and already owning the 18-200 for general purpose but wanted something faster and sharper on the tele end, I looked into the 70-200 VR and the 80-400. Not to be overlooked, lens envy pours over me for the 200-400 but alas its price drains that envy just as quickly.

IMHO, the 80-400 was a bit soft, the focus dial was very stiff and if felt more of a burden to use. Other people probably have had the opposite results, but for me, with both autofocus and manual focus the 70-200 put the 80-400 to shame even with the 1.4 TC on the 70-200 F2.8. Again, there are far more experienced and talented people out there than I who probably get amazing results with the 70-300 or the 80-400 for less money than the 70-200.

You may have trouble using a telecoverter with the 70-300 as james has mentioned to research. In addition, you may lose too many stops to be an effective lens for your needs with the 2.0 TC and the 70-300.

In a couple of weeks I plan to drive a bit of a distance to a store that has one of the 200-400's in stock and hope I don't fall in love with it. Though I have not tried the 70-300 I was very much impressed by the build, sharpness and speed of the 70-200 and works for my needs. I would suggest a closer look into it.

Perhaps Nikon may surprise us with possible new additions to the line up soon to chose from as well??

Have a great safari!

paquito

Its worth checking out the Nikkor 80-400 VR for sure. I've been using mine a couple of weeks and first results are very promising. It seems an ideal safari lens.

oops

There are some samples and user impressions about the 70-300 (and other tele zooms) here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17081

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16844

I've had it for the last 10 months and like it a lot.

Luiz

I've found these reviews to be pretty reliable regarding lenses.

http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

First of all we're talking different classes of lenses here. 70-300mm, 80-400mm, 70-200mm + TC, 200-400mm are all wildly ranging lens/price classes.

I have used the non-VR 70-300 and found it appauling, soft and full of CA. Especially at 300mm which is where you'll spend most of your time with wildlife. It may be better in the newer model, but for it's class, the 300mm end will always be crummy.

I have owned an 80-400mm for a couple years and its the lens that got me started in wildlife photography and it's brilliant! The focusing is a little slow and noisy but only when initially finding the subject, after which it tracks quite nicely and have shot many birds in flight with it. Trust me, the 400mm end makes all the difference and it can be quite sharp.

the next step up in price is the 70-200mm + 1.4x/2x TC's. This lens is amazingly sharp (noticably better than 80-400), but 200mm is nothing for wildilfe. With a 2x TC's you will lose light, focusing and sharpness beyond the 80-400mm. It is also a little bigger and heavier than the 80-400 especially with the TC's.

I have not shot with the 200-400 but i'm sure its amazingly sharp and fast. Personally I now shoot with a 300mm f/2.8 AFS/VR + TC's and my 80-400's gathering dust (but I haven't the heart to sell it...).

So, it really depends on what your budget is, if it's tight, get the 70-300mm, otherwise I'd get the 80-400mm and only reccomend a high end lens like the 200-400mm if you're really serious about wildlife and lugging that weight and price tag around. It will require a monopod to shoot, as does my 300mm. Cheers,

Chris

mtnman

Most of the previously mentioned lenses including the 70-300 are fairy sharp at the borders if you stop down one or two stops to F8. The lens that goes between the 80-200 f2.8 and the 500mm f4 AFS is the Nikor 300mm f4 AFS. I own these three lenses and they shoot just fine wide open and with a converter stopped down. The 300mm f4 AFS is light and packs realtively well for very long hikes that I would not want to carry a 500mm on. The older non AFS version of the Nikor 300 f4 that I once owned is also very sharp and less expensive used. A zoom is always nice but for the best quality/price ratio when shooting wide open you might want to consider a prime. The 200-400 f4 VR that I would love to own some day is definitely more versitile but for the money I think you will be satisfied with a quality fixed focal length lens with a converter. On the flip side there are plenty of serious amateurs and pros who own and shoot with the 80-400 and Galen Rowell used a non vr nikor f 4.5-5.6 70-300 without complaints. Probably stopped down. His focus was more about making a compelling image than one that was technically perfect. The Sigma 100-300mm F/4.0 EX DG IF HSM looks like a high quailty alternative if your comfortable with third party lenses and want a zoom. What ever you choose I would spend atleast as much time worrying about how you will be stabilizing your camera and lens since the angle of view of a 300mm lens on a nikon digital camera is equvalent to 450mm. http://www.kgear.com/r/ goodluck and happy hunting, vr Andy

Just to add an additional note. The general rule for autofocus is that you loose around a stop of light for teleconverters that have 1.4, 1.5 or 1.7 ratios and two stops of light for 2.0 (2X) converters. The cut off for most present day autofocus systems to work consistantly is an aperture of 5.6. So a 2X converter will autofocus reliably on a f2.8 lens but not an f4. The 1.4-1.7 converters work on f4 lenses but not very well if at all on a f4.5-5.6 zoom on full extension. Another reason to go with faster fixed focal length lens.

Andy