Need help with telephoto.

sohotrightnow

Ok, so I'm looking for a rather cheap telephoto that is around 70-300 or 100-300. My budget is probably gonna be under $400 and I have a Nikon D70. I was thinking of buying the Nikon 70-300 VR. But i'm not sure if VR is really worth the money, as I don't own any VR lenses. I was also thinking of the Nikon 70-300 or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4.5-6.7 as It is $150 at the most. So I really could use some help as to what will be the best investment for my money. :thumb

Thanks,
Hansel D.

Robinivich

If you're looking on the cheap side of telephoto, the sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is a good lens that fits the bill, my personal experience is that if you can live with the limitations of these kinds of lenses, ie often slow autofocus, rotating front element, less than great optical quality at 300, and slow apertures (an unfortunately long list) the sigma does quite nicely, it's lasted me a solid year now, and will last a while longer, but I'm starting to look at upgrades. Think hard about paying more now, and less later.

Having said that, the sigma's a quite nice lens for what it is, and it has a macro mode that few other telephotos can compare with (.5x magnification at 300mm). It comes with the hood, and a nice soft case. My only ever issues with this lens are that the aperture blades have gotten sticky at times in my canadian winter (usually it has to be at least -5 celsius for this to happen)

Also, most people first look only at the long end of the lens, but honestly, if this were a 100-300 instead of a 70-300, there'd be a ton of shots I'd miss, and to be honest, 70 is too long for my preference.

Finally, check out my birds gallery, all with the 70-300 (+patience and sometimes flash) and while I'm no pro, they're a good indication of what it can do in technical terms

swintonphoto

sohotrightnow wrote:

Ok, so I'm looking for a rather cheap telephoto that is around 70-300 or 100-300. My budget is probably gonna be under $400 and I have a Nikon D70. I was thinking of buying the Nikon 70-300 VR. But i'm not sure if VR is really worth the money, as I don't own any VR lenses. I was also thinking of the Nikon 70-300 or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4.5-6.7 as It is $150 at the most. So I really could use some help as to what will be the best investment for my money.

The VR is not the only difference in the VR version if the 70-300. The optical quality is on a totally different plane. See these reviews:

Nikon 70-300mm VR: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13
Nikon 70-300 (non-VR): http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/122/cat/13

While the VR version is more expensive, it is much better optically.

Other lenses you could consider:
Tamron 70-300mm: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=455
or the Nikon 55-200mm (This one is much better optically than the non-VR Nikon 70-300mm)
Nikon 55-200mm: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/133/cat/13
Nikon 55-200mm VR: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1088/cat/13

Robinivich

the 55-200s are something you should definitely look at, personally I find the difference between 200 and 300 to be less of an edge than 55-70. This is all assuming you're not shooting a D3, of course. The zooms really pay off with being able to be usefully short and long at the same time, the 55-200s do this, 100-300s are really just long.