nikkor 70-300 vr if-ed

headbanger_jib

Doomsday Device
Original poster
Staff member
Global Moderator
MFK Member
Nov 12, 2007
8,554
3,246
1,328
india
Hi I am planning to get this one for long range shots, especially birding
can u peeps please help me decide, i want to know whether it is going to be a nice sharp lens or its just gonna another 55-200 debacle(got it for a very niice price, but now i regret spending that money :( )
 

stratusfearrr

Feeder Fish
Sep 12, 2009
581
0
0
Connecticut
quality wise, it is better than the 55-200, but still nothing too amazing. What sucks with nikon is there is very few midrange lenses(pricewise). For me, i had looked at the lens a couple of months ago extensively, but after a while, i realized that for an extra four hundred, i could get a lens so much better. Sure, it took me a while to save, but it was worth it. To me, having the constant aperture of 2.8 on the nikon 80-200 2.8D lens makes it all worth it. I picked it up from adorama, used, for about 900. This lens looks brandnew and untouched. But it all depends on how much you wanna spend, and what kind of quality you want.

The way i look at it is that for the extra money you are getting a pro-quality lens(not the newest model, but an amateur like me cannot afford those!), a constant 2.8 aperture, and a nice, solid lens. When i pick it up it is heavy, but not when paired with my d200. They balance out nicely.

Just my two cents, hoped that helped a little!

Regards,
Jake
 

headbanger_jib

Doomsday Device
Original poster
Staff member
Global Moderator
MFK Member
Nov 12, 2007
8,554
3,246
1,328
india
hey thank you Jake
that helped quite a lot
 

stratusfearrr

Feeder Fish
Sep 12, 2009
581
0
0
Connecticut
And personally, i'd rather inverst in a lens ill want in the future, than one that will be "good enough" for now.

Regards,
Jake
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store