Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

70-300mmVR & Nikon D700

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

johnmac
johnmac  391 forum posts
22 Oct 2012 - 4:34 PM

Hi all
Iím sure this question has been asked many times but Iím hoping someone with a D700 can answer. I have a Nikon 24-120mm f4 and I would like another lens with a bit longer reach, thereís no way I could afford the dream lens 70-200 f2.8. A friend said he will sell me a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. I would like advice if this is a good lens to have and use on a D700? I would like to do some wildlife and sport although I guess it would be too slow for sport. Apart from my Nikon D700 I have a D5000.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
22 Oct 2012 - 4:34 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

peted01
peted01  570 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Oct 2012 - 5:08 PM

Hi John,

I had just that combination I still have the d700 and love it but traded the 70 - 300 in. The ONLY reason was that I wanted the 70 - 200 2.8 In my opinion the 70 - 300 was a lovely lens, I used it quite a lot and quality was usual Nikon standard and I sold quite a few images taken with it.

I do miss the extra reach of the 300 so I will end up getting a converter, but the 70 - 300 is a very good lens.

Pete

Railcam
Railcam  7465 forum posts Scotland
22 Oct 2012 - 5:59 PM

My usual lenses for railway photography are the 38-70/f2.8 AFD and the 70-300/f4.5-f5.6 G,AFS, VR11 used on a D700 body. When I first got the 70-300 I was concerned about the maximum aperture but I just upped the ISO and there is no problem.

This is an image I took two weeks ago with the lens on 85mm, hand held ISO 1600, 1/800 @ f11. I am more than happy with the quality.120360-keith-sanders.jpg

And an earlier shot at the same location but using 220mm at f16 120358-keith-sanders.jpg

All in all I am extremely happy with it.
Keith

Railcam
Railcam  7465 forum posts Scotland
22 Oct 2012 - 6:07 PM

In my above post, 38-70 should, of course, read 35-70, Hand/eye co-ordination on the blink. Sorry

MikeRC
MikeRC e2 Member 93488 forum postsMikeRC vcard United Kingdom
22 Oct 2012 - 7:19 PM

the-ballet-dancer-2.jpg

...shot with the excellent Nikon 70-300

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3186 forum postsannettep38 vcard France30 Constructive Critique Points
22 Oct 2012 - 7:39 PM

I was quite happy with the 70-300 VR whilst having a D2x.. But on the bigger format of the D3x I found it quite deficient in corner sharpness and CA in the edges. So I have put it on flebay last week as it did not keep up with an old 80-200 4.5 on the full format.

Just paid for my new lens - which you might consider an 80-200 2.8!

maggie9
maggie9  545 forum posts Scotland2 Constructive Critique Points
23 Oct 2012 - 4:44 PM

my main lens is the 70-300vr used on a d90

its not bulky or heavy to carry over long distances

sometimes the reach is found wanting, you need to be very patient and be prepared learn your wildlife subject well for the reward of close detailed shots Smile


maggie

johnmac
johnmac  391 forum posts
23 Oct 2012 - 7:27 PM

Hi all
Thank you for taking the time to reply and add your comments, your comments is most welcome. I posted a question a while ago about 80-400 lens on MPB website £700 used. Having looked at reviews about both lens and your replies they are both slow in auto focus and not very good in low light. Fortunately my friend said I can try his 70-300 out for a couple weeks so at least I can get a feel for it and that will make my mind up. Maggie9 good advice about wildlife I will definitely take take next time out. Railcam, MikeRC nice pics. Peted01, Annettep38 my dream lens would be 70-200 f2.8 but that is a only dream I can never afford one I need auto focus, I used the 70-200f2.8 Canon lens at a rugby match and it was so sharp and the auto focus so fast.

Many thanks to you all

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3186 forum postsannettep38 vcard France30 Constructive Critique Points
24 Oct 2012 - 12:26 AM

Well I paid 350 euro = £280 for the 80-200 2.8 Guess what, the sale of my 70-300 just about financed that, so it is not a big difference. I had asked here and many told me the 70-200 is not necessarily better.

But then again if you get the 70-300 as a real bargain why not.
Good luck

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62431 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
24 Oct 2012 - 8:40 AM

There are many web rumours about a Nikon announcement later this week of the launch of a 70-200 f4 VRIII.
If 200 mm is long enough it might be worth waiting a few days to see if anything is confirmed by Nikon.
On the other hand initial launch price could be double the 70-300 VR street price.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62431 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
24 Oct 2012 - 8:53 AM

There is nothing on the Nikon UK web site yet but the 70-200 f4 is announced http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/telephotozoom/af-s_70-200mmf_4g_ed_vr/...

peterjones
peterjones e2 Member 123851 forum postspeterjones vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
24 Oct 2012 - 1:59 PM

Check your inboxes: Grays of W' has just emailed me with news of the new 70-200 f4 @ £1172; methinks that there could be a considerable fall in price once the shiny box aficionados have rushed out and bought the lens.

Peter

User_Removed
24 Oct 2012 - 4:47 PM


Quote: There are many web rumours about a Nikon announcement later this week of the launch of a 70-200 f4 VRIII.
If 200 mm is long enough it might be worth waiting a few days to see if anything is confirmed by Nikon.
On the other hand initial launch price could be double the 70-300 VR street price.

More than double, it seems. But it could fall fast. Nikon really needed this lens to match the Canon equivalent - a decent 70-200mm without the expense of the superb 70-200mm f/2.8 for those users for whom f/2.8 is not worth the extra shekels.

With the f/2.8 Nikkor currently settled at around £1600, I guess the street price of the f/4 should drop to around half of that. That's not to say, of course, that for many users, the 70-300mm won't remain a more attractive option.

johnmac
johnmac  391 forum posts
24 Oct 2012 - 6:59 PM

My 24-120 f4 cost me just over £800 and the 16-35 f4 is the same I reckon the 70-200 f4 will be around £999.99. I shall have to wait now for a month or so to see if it does come out.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62431 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 - 4:33 PM


Quote: I reckon the 70-200 f4 will be around £999.99. I shall have to wait now for a month or so to see if it does come out.

Grays are taking orders at £1,172 - this is likely to be the Nikon UK list price.
The Nikon list price (which includes 26% "all in" UK taxes) of the 16-35 and 24-120 f4 is about 9% lower at £1.071. £1,071 is a lot more than current street of around £839.
For the patient prepared to wait around 6 months this implies an eventual 70-200 f4 street price around £915.
Depending on what is wanted the 70-200 f4 could be an interesting alternative to the 70-300.
Nikon's MTF for this new lens is much better than for the 70-300, it appears to focus close enough for an image about 6 inches wide on FX or 4 inches wide on DX. It accepts Nikon AF converters to get more magnification.
It might well outperform the 70-300 at 300mm at longer focus distances coupled with a 1.4 converter.
The downside of the new lens relative to the 70-300 is price premium, plus maybe the price of a converter as well.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.