Indecision is Killing Me

chuckinsocal

Hi Gang,

I think I'm within a week or so of ordering my new Nikon D80 stuff.

B&H has it with a 18-135 zoom for $999.99. So far so good.

I like to shoot surfers and some wildlife so I was also gonna to get the Nikon 70-300 VR for $479. But now I'm seeing 70-300s non VR lenses for less than $160, some by Nikon others by Tamron, Sigma, and others. That's better than a $300 difference.

So, the big question is, if I'm willing to trade off the VR and save the $300, are these other lenses gonna produce the same or better quality photos, VR not withstanding?

Some of the choices are here, here, and here. Are there better choices? Or, should I eat the $300 and stick with the 70-300 VR. This will be my first DSLR so I'd really like to get it right the first time and reduce the chances of kicking my self in the butt later on for a bad decision.

Thanks in advance for your help.

ziggy53

Chuck,

Pretty good reviews of the lenses you might be interested in here, including the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm, f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

chuckinsocal

Hey Ziggy,

Thanks for the link.

Both the Nikon 70-300 VR and the Sigma 100-300 had excellent reviews but the Sigma is HUGE and I don't think it retracts ... I think I'll have more confidence ordering the Nikon VR even if I have to blow $300. In the long run I'll forget about the $300 and probably be happy with the lens. Otherwise I could be kicking my self for buying a cheaper lens that I'm not happy with.

InsuredDisaster

ziggy53 wrote:

Chuck,

Pretty good reviews of the lenses you might be interested in here, including the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm, f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

I can't comment about the quality of one over the other, BUT I will admit that VR is very nice to have at times. With telephotos, the rule of thumb is if you are using a 300mm lense, you should use a shutter speed of at least 1/300th second to minimize hand shake blur. In low light (especially with the slower consumer lenses) that maybe impossible.

I've also used VR when I wanted a slower shutter speed to blur people moving but I wanted other things clear.

Of course, VR will not reduce people blur if they are moving.

VR may not be worth the 300 to you. I will admit, I got along quite happily before I knew about it. But I will say that it does come in very handy and does make its presence known to me.

jonh68

Both the Nikon 70-300 VR and the Sigma 100-300 had excellent reviews but the Sigma is HUGE and I don't think it retracts ... I think I'll have more confidence ordering the Nikon VR even if I have to blow $300. In the long run I'll forget about the $300 and probably be happy with the lens. Otherwise I could be kicking my self for buying a cheaper lens that I'm not happy with.

It has been my experience that I buy the cheaper stuff thinking it will do me because I will not get serious. I end up getting serious and end up paying twice or three times what I should have. The 70-300 VR should do you well, but just be prepared for the upgrade bug. I do recommend NOT using a friends better lenses if you have ones that do. You don't want to know what you are missing.

My recommendation to you is get the D80 and 18-200 VR if you can afford the combo. You will have a huge range, and not miss much in regards to the 300 mm range. I have the cheap 70-300 and the 18-200 is sharper cropped to 300 mm than the 70-300 full length. With the 18-200, you will have a lens you will use most of the time, and then you can save up for better glass for specific purposes. I have the 18-200, and I also have better glass, but the 18-200 stays on most of time. I use the better glass for specific purposes. For surfing, I don't think you will miss much using the 18-200. I used it for a jet ski competition and I could zoom in on the jet skiers and then pull back and get wide angle of the beach scene.

With better quality lenses, they do become bigger and heavier, but image quality does have a price. In regards to retracting, neither lens retracts. The 70-300 VR EXTENDS, the Sigma stays constant. I think most people like have a constant size lens over one that extends. If you do go with the 70-300, I would recommend going with the Nikon and not the 3rd party lenses. However, if you decide to go to the pro quality category like the 100-300 Sigma, the Sigma's are very nice for the price.

bendruckerphoto

The cheap 70-300's tend to not have internal focusing (AF-S for Nikon lenses). I've handled the bottom end Nikon 70-300 (no ED, no AF-S, no VR). The image quality was pretty bad, the autofocus was horrible, it was a terrible experience. I own and use the 70-300 VR, which is 10 times better. The IQ is much much better, and the AF is also better. As expected, it's a little soft at either end as well as wide open, but that's a given for a lens in that range for under $500. If you decide on a wide and a 70-300, get the Nikon VR model.

jonh68

The cheap 70-300's tend to not have internal focusing (AF-S for Nikon lenses). I've handled the bottom end Nikon 70-300 (no ED, no AF-S, no VR). The image quality was pretty bad, the autofocus was horrible, it was a terrible experience.

I agree the AF is not fast with the lens, but it hasn't been a horrible experience. The image quality, while not pro grade is not bad either. You have to know the sweet spot for any given lens. Personally, I would get the 70-300 non VR over the VR version. If I were going to spend $500, I would spend another 150 for the 18-200 VR for a MUCH more versatile lens, or spend another $500 for pro grade glass.

chuckinsocal

WOW ... so many great responses ... thanks gang for sharing all your wisdom. This forum totally rocks. There is no better community anywhere on this planet.

I think I'm gonna stick with my original plan and get the 70-300 VR. I just feel more confident with that decision. There's no doubt that it's a good lens for amateur use and it was in the original budget anyway, so why second guess my self and risk being disappointed.

Thanks again .

bobcool

Find a different kit
Almost three years ago I bought the D80 new with the 18-55 kit lens and I paid $1099 - only $100 more than you're paying today. If you're going to get the 70-300, then why waste your money paying for an 18-135 kit lens? With your kit lens, you're overlapping. Is there a cheaper kit price that includes the 18-55 lens? If so, grab that and buy a SB-600 flash with the savings.

chuckinsocal

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your response, but after rethinking this again and again and again, I think I'm gonna stick with my original plan simply because I think it is gonna fit my style and I'm generally comfortable with it.

I thought of your combo originally but I'd have a gap between the 55 and 70 and decided that there are probably a lot of good shots in that range that I'd either miss or wouldn't come out the way I'd want. Living near the beach there are a lot of wide open spaces and opportunities for longer shots that I think the 135 would work for so I can use the 18-135 as my walk around lens. The 70-300 would be for surfers and wild life stuff.

I'll eventually get a flash but for now I don't do a lot of indoor shooting or out door portraits where fill flash is needed.

Thanks again for your response. It is appreciated.

jonh68

I thought of your combo originally but I'd have a gap between the 55 and 70 and decided that there are probably a lot of good shots in that range that I'd either miss or wouldn't come out the way I'd want. Living near the beach there are a lot of wide open spaces and opportunities for longer shots that I think the 135 would work for so I can use the 18-135 as my walk around lens. The 70-300 would be for surfers and wild life stuff.

I am with Bob on this one. 55-70 is not that big of range to miss. It's maybe walking backwards or forwards a couple of feet. There is no need to get the 18-135 unless you get something with more range than the 70-300. If you are determined for the 70-300 VR, save your money and get the 18-55 kit lens.

I still say the 18-200 VR will be your best bet. I have found there is not much difference between 200mm and 300mm. If long range is needed, getting a 400 mm reach is more desirable than 300mm. The 18-200 is the ultimate walkabout lens and the pictures you can get with it will not be that much difference in reach than the 70-300. Having the 18-200 is a good base to build your future lenses from.

I speak from experience. When I bought my D50, it came with 18-55 and 70-300. When I bought my 18-200 VR, I hardly EVER put the 70-300 or 18-55 on. I found the 300 reach was not that much greater than 200. If you need reach, I think you are better off getting the 18-55 kit lens, and then getting a Sigma 50-500, or the new 150-500 OS.

chuckinsocal

Thanks guys for sharing your wisdom. It's very much appreciated.

There's no way I can say I'm right and you're wrong ... all I can say is that I'm comfortable with the decisions I've made. My gut feeling is, and that is all it is is a gut feeling, that if I"m going to be disappointed, I'll be less disappointed in my current decision than in some of the other options.

I strongly considered the Nikkor 18-200 VR but most of the reviews I read on it rated is poorly for Zoom Creep, distortion, and CA.

I'd love that Sigma 150-500 but at $979 at B&H it's way outside my budget. I"m lucky to have the budget I have for what I want.

The 18-55 runs less than $200 at B&H so if it turns out that I really need or want it, it would be an easy purchase.

Again, I really do appreciate your input, but for now I think I'm good to go.

nobody

I agree with the other comment about lense length and surfers. If you are shooting from the beach and intend to get a reasonably tight crop, you want as long a lense as you can afford. 200 or 300 mm will be inadequate. You would do better with somthing in the 500 - 600 mm range. I say that because I don't have anything longer than 200 mm with the 1.6 crop factor from my XTi at the moment, and I can tell you that is woefully inadequate for surfers. Adding 50% wouldn't cut it, but double or triple the focal length, and I might be able to properly crop the action with the camera. If I shot surfers regularly, I would probably go with one of the sigma lenses, either 50 - 500 or the newer 150 - 500 for about $1000.

pyry

chuckinsocal wrote:

I strongly considered the Nikkor 18-200 VR but most of the reviews I read on it rated is poorly for Zoom Creep, distortion, and CA.

You might be using less than common characteristics to dismiss that lens.

Zoom creep is only an issue if shoot steeply upwards or downwards on a tripod, hence with your hand off the lens (and you can use gaffer's tape if you are). Distortions only really show if they are very strong and you shoot a brick wall or something. CA can be corrected to a degree - and even doesn't rear it's head without very strong contrasts in the image.

I checked photozone's numbers on that lens - I think it's perfectly serviceable. A quite amazing feat for a lens of anywhere near this zoom range.

jonh68

I'd love that Sigma 150-500 but at $979 at B&H it's way outside my budget. I"m lucky to have the budget I have for what I want.

What we are trying to tell you for the type of shot you want to get, it is better saving up for the lens than spending $500 now, and then another $1000 later. If you get impatient and want it now, you would be better off getting the 70-300 G cheap version which would give you the 18-55 and 70-300 for under $350 if you go non VR.

Spend $650 on the 18-200 and have a versatile lens that will take care of 95% of the pictures you need and then save up for the longer reach lenses. Because you ARE on a budget, making a wise a choice is more important. I am the kind I would rather go cheap or save money for the better stuff. With your budget, the 70-300 VR is not a good decision based on your budget and stated needs.

chuckinsocal

Well, I've pulled the trigger, cast the die, rang the bell, and all that stuff, and ordered my D80 from B&H as follows:

D80 Body
18-135 MM Kit Lens
70-300mm VR Lens
Extra Battery
Sandisk 8GB Ultra II SDHC Card (9 MB /Sec)
Remote Cord

It should be here via UPS 2 Day Air by this Wednesday. I Can't wait!!!

I just wanted to thank everyone again for taking the time to respond and advise. Obviously, I couldn't follow everyone's advise, but it's a big world out there and what I'm getting gotta be good for shooting something well. If I'm disappointed I only have myself to blame. I'll just have to stay within the limitations of what I have and those limitations far exceed those of my little P&S. It's gonna take me a while to learn how to use it all anyway.

So thanks again and I'll post pics when it all arrives on Wednesday.:ivar