How are these lenses?

[slayer7124]

I made a thread the other day about getting some new lenses. I was looking at these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...kkor_50mm.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...G_AF_S_VR.html

One for portraits and the other for more zoom. Buying both puts me within what I would like to spend. I was really looking for a good zoom lens for wildlife, but after you get past the 300mm mark they all jump up in price to about 700 or so. I've heard good things about both lenses. Anyone else have anything to say?

Thanks!

[Old Timer]

I have never used the 70-300 but as for the 50 f1.8 I can tell you you can't go wrong with it. For the money the best lens Nikon ever made.

[deckcadet]

Both of those lenses are excellent and have fantastic reputations and get consistently good reviews. I would like to mention there are rumors about a new fast 50mm coming from Nikon with AF-S, so you *may* want to wait a little while as the lens is several years old. The 70-300VR is brand new, and it's got great quality.

[slayer7124]

Thanks guys! I didnt know the 50mm lens was old. Were there any dates for the new 50mm or a price?

[another view]

That's the first I've heard about a 50mm af-s, but I'll probably buy one if it comes out. I wouldn't look for one anytime soon though - for $110 you'll get one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses ever made. Think of all the great shots you'll get with it before the newer version comes out...

300mm is a bit on the short side for wildlife, but you're right that prices climb quickly after that. I had a Tokina 80-400 that was amazingly sharp below 300, but not very good beyond that. You might want to consider a used 300mm f4, the older non-AFS version is about this price or maybe less. Killer sharpness, and can use a 1.4x teleconverter (420mm total) while keeping autofocus because the effective aperture of the combination is f5.6. I think you might have a compatibility problem with a D40 or D60 and I'm not sure what you're shooting, so let us know what you have if you're interested in the 300 f4. Old Timer just bought one and you might want to check out his thread in Viewfinder about it.

[Frog]

He has a D80

[slayer7124]

He has a D80

Roger that.

The lens I have now was the one that came with my kit, which is an 18-135mm. Anything would be a step up now. I mainly want to get a better zoom because I'll be heading to Australia at the end of May and I really want to make the best out of my photography while I'm there. With the cost of the trip and the remaining budget that I have, the 70-300mm VR fits in nicely. I'll take a look at the 300 f4 and check out that thread. Thanks!

EDIT

Would this happen to be the lens you are talking about?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...o_AF_Zoom.html

[another view]

Would this happen to be the lens you are talking about?

No - this isn't a zoom lens. KEH has one right here. The current AF-S version will focus faster, but even used they're over a grand. It'll work just fine on a D80 as long as you're not shooting sports in low light. This one is maybe a little more than you might find one for on ebay if you're patient, but of course KEH has a great reputation and a 30 day warranty.

Zooms typically don't play well with teleconverters. There's a world of difference that you just can't see with a 400x600 image posted on a website comparing this lens with most zooms, and especially a zoom with a TC. With a 1.4x teleconverter (the one specifically designed for this lens, not a generic), you'll have a really sharp 420mm f5.6 lens. This aperture is about the limit of what autofocus systems can handle, so you'll be fine there too. I had an f7.2 lens years ago (2/3 stop slower) and AF didn't even work well even on my F100.

[slayer7124]

So given these two lenses, the 70-300mm VR, and this one, the 300mm f4, which is the better deal? Seems I can use a teleconverter with the 300 f4 but not the 300 VR and that would give me distance.

I was looking to spend around 600 or so. The 300 VR and the 50mm would bring me to that range. Also the 300 f4 and maybe a teleconverter would do the same. Which was should I go??

Thanks for the help!

[Frog]

I have no experience with the 70-300 but did see a lot of good reviews in the B&H site.
However, Ken Rockwell doesn't seem to like it much. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

[deckcadet]

Ken Rockwell is well known for reviewing lenses he has never used and for his controversial opinions. I would take his lens reviews with a grain of salt.

[another view]

So given these two lenses, the 70-300mm VR, and this one, the 300mm f4, which is the better deal?

The advantage of the 300 f4 is amazing image quality, but the 70-300 will be much more versatile being a zoom and having VR. If you always will use it at 300mm (not uncommon with lenses like this, actually), then you might as well get the 300 f4 prime lens. It's really not a case of one being better; they're different.

[slayer7124]

The advantage of the 300 f4 is amazing image quality, but the 70-300 will be much more versatile being a zoom and having VR. If you always will use it at 300mm (not uncommon with lenses like this, actually), then you might as well get the 300 f4 prime lens. It's really not a case of one being better; they're different.

So either or would be a good choice then, correct? I either can have a zoom with VR or one that has better picture quality at full zoom, with the option of a teleconverter. Hmmm, decisions, decisions, haha.

[slayer7124]

Dang, that 300 f4 lens isnt listed anymore!

[another view]

or one that has better picture quality at full zoom

Just to be sure you understand, the 300 f4 is not a zoom lens. It only has a 300mm focal length. Photography is all about tradeoffs; for the convenience of a zoom you'll usually lose a little bit of image quality. Sure, the 200-400 f4 is supposed to be amazing and it has VR (doesn't it?) but it's also about five grand.

[slayer7124]

The 300 f4 is at 300 all the time, correct? I think I understand now, haha, thanks. The 300 f4 that I have been finding for sale are pretty expensive now. I missed out on the one on KEH.

[another view]

They haven't made this version for several years so it's only available used. Downside is that it isn't AF-S and it uses odd 82mm filters (I think...). I personally just don't use filters on a lens that long for whatever reason, but it might be worth checking out. A step-down adapter to 77mm if you have any filters of that size shouldn't cause any problems with a DSLR - just theory as I don't have one to try but I doubt this could cause vignetting. The advantage of this lens is that when it is available, it's usually in the $500 range; maybe a bit less. KEH will have another one in at some point, and there's always Ebay.

The new AF-S version is supposed to be just as good optically but it's about $1200. This one uses 77mm filters, so yet another reason I think a step-down ring would be OK with the older lens. Heck, all this talk about 300 f4's - maybe I'll end up with another one!

[slayer7124]

Haha. Well it seems like a very good lens. With the limited availability of this lens used I might just go with the 70-300mm VR and the 50mm f1.8. I checked ebay and there were one or two but weren't in to good of shape. Thanks for all your help!

[racedraper]

well I have a 18-200 vr lens thats only 3 months old I will sell for 650 shipped. will come with a uv filter and the warranty card was never filled out. All of my photos were taken with it.